Board of Review Decision 352-N56H-67T9

The claimant applied for training benefits while enrolled in a general studies associate’s degree program. Midway through his first semester, he enrolled in a business administration transfer associate’s degree program at the same school with no effect on credits earned or the program duration. Held the claimant is eligible for training benefits since he needs training to become re-employed and demonstrated that he is enrolled in one continuous training program.

Board of Review
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 400
Boston, MA 02114
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Issue ID: 352-N56H-67T9

Board of Review Decision

Introduction and Procedural History of this Appeal 

The claimant appeals a decision by a review examiner of the Department of Unemployment Assistance (DUA) to deny an extension of the claimant’s unemployment benefits while he was participating in a training program (training benefits). We review, pursuant to our authority under G.L. c. 151A, § 41, and reverse. 

The claimant separated from employment and was approved for benefits on a claim with an effective date of April 13, 2025. Subsequently, he filed an application for an extension of benefits to attend a training program, which the agency denied in a determination issued on October 27, 2025. The claimant appealed the determination to the DUA hearings department. Following a hearing on the merits, attended by the claimant, the review examiner affirmed the agency’s initial determination and denied training benefits in a decision rendered on January 20, 2026. We accepted the claimant’s application for review.

Training benefits were denied after the review examiner determined that the claimant’s program was not necessary for the claimant to obtain suitable employment in view of his education and experience, and, thus, the claimant did not meet the requirements of G.L. c. 151A, § 30(c), and 430 CMR 9.00 et seq. Our decision is based upon our review of the entire record, including the recorded testimony and evidence from the hearing, the review examiner’s decision, and the claimant’s appeal.

The issue before the Board is whether the review examiner’s decision, which concluded that the claimant was ineligible for training benefits because he had not shown that he would gain skills that would provide him with a better opportunity to locate work upon completion of his general studies program, is supported by substantial and credible evidence and is free from error of law.

Findings of Fact

The review examiner’s findings of fact are set forth below in their entirety:

1. The claimant filed his claim for unemployment benefits effective April 13, 2025.
2. Prior to filing his claim for unemployment benefits, the claimant worked as a full-time Produce Account Manager. The employer is a third party logistic [sic], moving the customers’ freight. The claimant worked for that employer for approximately 4 years. The claimant was laid off with no chance of recall.
3. The claimant had prior work experience working as a freight broker (1 year), restaurant owner (20 years), and in the restaurant field as a server and bartender (1 year).
4. The claimant has a high school diploma. The claimant does not have a college degree. 
5. After his separation from work, the claimant was looking for full-time work in the logistic field, as an account manager or in a transportation role.
6. To date the claimant submitted 86 applications. The claimant obtained four interviews from those applications and was not offered employment. The claimant was notified that the potential employers had decided to pursue a candidate whose qualifications more closely match the specific needs of the position. (The claimant believed that the potential employers were looking for a candidate with a degree in business administration with a focus in supply chain management.)
7. The claimant submitted a Training Opportunities Program application with a signature date of September 4, 2025. The training facility listed in the claimant’s Training Opportunities Program application is [Community College A]. The program is the undergraduate associate degree program in General Studies. The start date of the program is September 2, 2025. The completion date of the program is May 15, 2027. The program is a full-time program of 12 or more credits per semester. The claimant will need 60 credits to complete the program.
8. The claimant was enrolled for the fall semester 2025 taking 12 credits. The claimant intends to enroll in the spring semester 2026 taking 12 credits, summer session (one) taking 6 credits, summer session (two) taking 6 credits, fall semester 2026 taking 12 credits and spring semester 2027 taking 12 credits.
9. While attending the General Studies associate degree program, the claimant is taking extra credits to be able to obtain the Supply Chain Management Certification.
10. Upon completion of the General Studies degree program, the claimant will receive an associate’s degree. With the additional credits, the claimant will also receive a Supply Chain Management Certification.
11. The Supply Chain Management Certification will allow the claimant to work as a Transportation Analyst, Transportation Coordinator, Supply Chain Analyst or Supply Chain Coordinator.
12. On October 27, 2025, a Notice of Disqualification was issued under Section 30(c) of the law, indicating “You are not eligible to receive 26 weeks of additional benefits at your weekly rate while you are in this full-time program.” “You are going to a fulltime school or training program at this time, but your application for this school or training program was denied because it does not meet the requirements of the law.” The claimant filed an appeal to [sic] that determination.
13. After receiving the determination of October 27, 2025, the claimant enrolled in a different program, and submitted a new Training Opportunities Program application for enrollment in [sic] Business Administration Transfer associate’s degree program at [Community College A]. The claimant submitted the new Training Opportunities Program application with a signature date of October 28, 2025.

Ruling of the Board

In accordance with our statutory obligation, we review the record and the decision made by the review examiner to determine: (1) whether the findings are supported by substantial and credible evidence; and (2) whether the review examiner’s conclusion is free from error of law. 

After such review, the Board adopts the review examiner’s findings of fact except as follows. There appears to be a scrivener’s error in Finding of Fact 3, which states, in part, that the claimant has 20 years of experience as a restaurant owner and one year of experience in the restaurant field as a server and bartender. Based on the record, we believe that the review examiner intended to find that the claimant had 20 years of experience in the restaurant industry as a server and bartender, and one year of experience as a restaurant owner.  We reject Finding of Fact 9 insofar as it indicates that the claimant is attending the general studies associate degree program and taking extra credits to obtain a supply chain management certification. We also reject Finding of Fact 10 insofar as it indicates that the claimant will receive an associate’s degree and supply chain management certification upon completion of the general studies degree program. These findings are inconsistent with Finding of Fact 13, which shows that, after receiving the October 27, 2025, denial notice, the claimant enrolled in a business administration transfer associate’s degree program.

In adopting the remaining findings, we deem them to be supported by substantial and credible evidence. However, as discussed more fully below, we reject the review examiner’s legal conclusion that the claimant is not entitled to training benefits. 

The review examiner’s decision to deny the claimant’s application for training benefits derives from G.L. c. 151A, § 30(c), which relieves claimants who are enrolled in approved training programs of the obligation to search for work and permits extensions of up to 26 weeks of additional benefits. The regulations that govern training benefits establish both procedures and standards for approving the training programs, as well as the eligibility criteria for claimants seeking to participate in such programs. See430 CMR 9.01–9.08.

To qualify for training benefits, claimants must show, inter alia, that they are “unlikely to obtain suitable employment based on their most recently utilized job skills and . . . [t]hey are in need of training to become re-employed.” 430 CMR 9.03(1). 

Prior to filing his claim, the claimant worked in the logistics field for approximately five years. See Findings of Fact 2 and 3. Since separating from his last employer, the claimant has looked for full-time work in the logistics field. See Finding of Fact 5. Although he had submitted 86 applications as of the date of the hearing, he had gotten only four interviews and no job offers. Potential employers have told the claimant that they are pursuing candidates whose qualifications more closely match their specific needs. He believes that potential employers are looking for candidates who have degrees in business administration with a focus on supply chain management. See Finding of Fact 6.

In her decision, the review examiner concluded that the claimant needs training to obtain suitable employment. We agree. Thus, the claimant has demonstrated that he meets the requirements of 430 CMR 9.03(1). 

Next, we consider whether the claimant is eligible for training benefits based on the training program in which he is enrolled. 

In her decision, the review examiner evaluated the claimant’s application for training benefits while he was enrolled in a general studies associate’s degree program at his community college. See Finding of Fact 7. She concluded that the claimant had not established that he would have skills that would provide him with a better opportunity to locate work upon completing that program. We also note that, according to the Department of Career Services Massachusetts One Stop Employment System (MOSES) database, the general studies associate’s degree program at the claimant’s community college is not an approved training program for purposes of G.L. c. 151A, § 30(c).

However, after the claimant received the determination issued on October 27, 2025, denying his application for training benefits, he enrolled in a business administration transfer associate’s degree program. See Finding of Fact 13. The claimant completed a new application for training benefits while he was enrolled in the business administration transfer program and signed it on October 28, 2025. See Finding of Fact 13 and Exhibit 10. The DUA’s electronic record-keeping database shows that the claimant uploaded his second application for training benefits with his appeal to the hearings department on October 28, 2025. 

The claimant’s second application for training benefits states that the claimant will be enrolled full-time in the business administration transfer program from September 2, 2025, through May 15, 2027. See Exhibit 10, page 4. This is the same period of enrollment as the claimant’s general studies program. See Finding of Fact 7. Moreover, the claimant’s second application for training benefits shows that the program ID (for PRO and MOSES programs) is 1081913. A review of the MOSES database shows that this program is approved for Section 30 training. 

Pursuant to 430 CMR 9.05(8), “[c]laimants may participate in only one training program in a benefit year.” However, in prior cases, we held that claimants who switched programs within the same educational institution, where the courses taken in the first program were required for the new program, did not jeopardize their Section 30 approval. This is because such claimants were effectively participating in a single continuous training program. See Board of Review Decision 0017 8667 73 (May 31, 2016) (citation omitted).

Similarly in this case, we do not view the business administration transfer program to be a second training program. The claimant was taking 12 credits during the fall, 2025, semester while enrolled in the general studies program at Bristol Community College. See Findings of Fact 7 and 8. His second application for training benefits indicates that his transfer to the business administration transfer program at the same school on or around October 28, 2025, did not affect his course of study. This is based on the fact that he remained enrolled in 12 credits during that fall semester, he will still be enrolled full-time over the same period as the original general studies program, and he will finish the training program within the same period of time, September 2, 2025, to May 14, 2027. See Findings of Fact 7 and 8; and Exhibit 10, page 4. Because the transfer was mid-semester, we can reasonably infer that the courses in which the claimant was enrolled at the beginning of the fall, 2025, semester were credited to the business administration transfer program. He was effectively enrolled in one continuous training program. Thus, his business administration transfer program was not a second training program within the same benefit year. 

We, therefore, conclude as a matter of law that the claimant has shown that he needs training to become re-employed, and that his business administration transfer associates degree program meets the eligibility requirements for training benefits pursuant to G.L. c. 151A, § 30(c), and 430 CMR 9.03 and 9.05(8).

The review examiner’s decision is reversed. The claimant is entitled to receive up to 26 times his weekly benefit rate while attending the business administration transfer associate’s degree program beginning August 31, 2025, to May 15, 2027, if otherwise eligible.

Boston, Massachusetts                                              Date of Decision – April 15, 2026

1. While not explicitly incorporated into the review examiner’s findings, the claimant’s testimony about his employment history is part of the unchallenged evidence introduced at the hearing and placed in the record, and it is thus properly referred to in our decision today. See Bleich v. Maimonides School, 447 Mass. 38, 40 (2006); Allen of Michigan, Inc. v. Deputy Dir. of Department of Employment and Training, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 370, 371 (2005).
2. Exhibit 10 is the claimant’s second application for training benefits. This exhibit is also part of the unchallenged evidence introduced at the hearing and placed in the record.
3. Board of Review Decision 0017 8667 73 is an unpublished decision, available upon request. For privacy reasons, identifying information is redacted.

Charlene A Stawicki, Esquire
Member

Michael J. Albano
Member

Any further appeal would further appeal further appeal would be to a Massachusetts State District Court
(See Section 42, Chapter 151A, General Laws, Enclosed)

The last day to appeal this decision to a Massachusetts District Court is thirty days from the mail date on the first page of this decision. If that thirtieth day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the last day to appeal this decision is the business day next following the thirtieth day.

Visit this page to locate the nearest Massachusetts District Court.

Please be advised that fees for services rendered by an attorney or agent to a claimant in connection with an appeal to the Board of Review are not payable unless submitted to the Board of Review for approval, under G.L. c. 151A, § 37.

REB/rh