Board of Review Decision 352-NJ7F-2RPD

Although the record shows that the claimant needs training to obtain suitable employment despite his education and experience, given his age and the competitive IT market, he is ineligible for extended benefits under G.L. c. 151A, § 30(c), because he is not enrolled in an approved training program

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

Issue ID: 352-NJ7F-2RPD

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 to attend a training program (training benefits). We review, pursuant to our authority under G.L. c. 151A, § 41, and affirm. 

The claimant separated from employment and filed a claim, effective August 17, 2025, which was approved. Subsequently, he filed an application for an extension of benefits to attend a training program, which was denied in a determination issued on February 3, 2026. The claimant appealed the determination to the DUA hearings department. Following a hearing on the merits, the review examiner affirmed the agency’s determination and denied training benefits in a decision rendered on March 9, 2026. We accepted the claimant’s application for review.

Training benefits were denied after the review examiner concluded that the claimant’s chosen 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 for training benefits pursuant to 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 is not eligible for training benefits, is supported by substantial and credible evidence and is free from error of law, where the record shows that the claimant has not enrolled in the requested program.

Findings of Fact

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

1. The claimant filed for Unemployment benefits with an effective date of August 17, 2025. The claimant received his first benefit payment on October 22, 2025. 
2. The claimant separated from his most recent employment as the director of IT with a data management firm after ten years in mid-August 2025, due to a layoff. The claimant has a master’s degree in international business and past employment experience in banking. 
3. On December 30, 2025, the claimant submitted a Training Opportunities Program (TOP) application for a full-time, online medical billing and coding certificate program. The program is a MOSES approved program. The claimant anticipated starting the program on March 1, 2026, with an expected duration of twenty-six weeks. The goal is to prepare to take the National certified billing exam. 
4. On February 3, 2026, the DUA denied the application. 
5. The claimant believes that the IT market is saturated and he will not obtain new employment in this field. The claimant is looking for a career change and thought that the medical billing field is a good opportunity to become employed, as well as to work remotely. The claimant is willing to work in person, and has been applying for all open positions, but the best opportunity for a remote position is through medical billing.

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 to note as follows. We reject Finding of Fact 5 insofar as it suggests that the claimant has limited his work search to remote positions, because this is unsupported by the record. In adopting the remaining findings, we deem them to be supported by substantial and credible evidence. Further, as discussed more fully below, while we agree with the review examiner’s conclusion that the claimant is ineligible for training benefits, we do so on different grounds.

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 DUA regulations that govern training benefits establish both procedures and standards for approving training programs, as well as the eligibility criteria for claimants seeking to participate in such programs. See 430 CMR 9.01–9.08. In order to qualify for training benefits, claimants must be “unlikely to obtain suitable employment based on their most recently utilized job skills.” 430 CMR 9.03(1). In this case, the review examiner concluded that the claimant did not need training to obtain suitable employment given his advanced education and management experience. We disagree.

Although the claimant has prior experience in banking, he testified that this was very early in his career before going to graduate school to obtain his Master’s degree. He further testified that, after obtaining a Master’s degree in international business, the rest of his career was in IT, and, although this included 10 years of experience as a Director of IT, he has had no success finding an IT job. See Finding of Fact 2. He believes that, with the emergence of AI, the possibility of working in IT is non-existent, noted that Amazon has laid off 40,000 people, and, on Linked-In, he has observed people applying for positions at the rate of 60–100 per hour. Moreover, he believes that he is at a further disadvantage due to his age.

Finding of Fact 5 states that the claimant has been applying for all open positions. More specifically, he testified that he spends about 3–4 hours a day on Indeed and Linked-in, has applied for everything he could think of without getting hits, including consulting jobs and project management jobs, and that he is willing to commute to Boston to work in-person but has only been able to obtain a part-time job at [Stadium A] serving food at football games. At the time that the claimant testified at the hearing on March 5, 2026, he had been unemployed for seven months.

Given this evidence, we are satisfied that the claimant needs training to obtain suitable employment. However, the regulations further provide that training benefits are only available while the claimant is enrolled in the training course. 430 CMR 9.06(1). During the hearing, the claimant candidly testified that he had not yet enrolled in the requested medical billing program. See Finding of Fact 1. Because he was not enrolled, he does not meet the requirements of 430 CMR 9.06(1).

We, therefore, conclude as a matter of law that the claimant is not eligible for training benefits pursuant to G.L. c. 151A, § 30(c), to participate in the requested training program.

The review examiner’s decision is affirmed. The claimant is not entitled to receive an extension of up to 26 times his weekly benefit rate under G.L. c. 151A, § 30(c). 

N.B.: Although the requested training program was preliminarily approved by the Special Programs Unit, evidence in the record suggests that this is a self-paced on-line program, which does not meet the definition of full-time enrollment under a separate DUA regulation. This regulation requires that the training program be at least 20 hours per week of supervised classroom training. See 430 CMR 9.04(2)(b). The claimant may, within two (2) weeks from the date of this decision, contact the DUA’s Special Programs Unit and submit a new Training Opportunities Program (TOP) Application. See 430 CMR 9.05(6)(b).

Boston, Massachusetts                                              Date of Decision – April 27, 2026

1. While not explicitly incorporated into the review examiner’s findings, this portion of the claimant’s testimony, as well as the testimony referenced below, 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. SeeBleich 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). The DUA’s electronic record-keeping database shows that the claimant is 59 years old.

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.

AB/rh