Board of Review Decision 352-NJDF-FJ9N

Inasmuch as the claimant was approved as a WIOA trainee, he was deemed to be unlikely to obtain suitable employment pursuant to 430 CMR 9.03(3)(a), and he is entitled to extended unemployment benefit under G.L. c. 151A, § 30(c).

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

Issue ID: 352-NJDF-FJ9N

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 participated in a training program. We review, pursuant to our authority under G.L. c. 151A, § 41, and reverse. 

The claimant separated from his employment and filed a claim for unemployment benefits with the DUA, effective June 1, 2026, which was approved. Subsequently, he filed an application for an extension of benefits to attend a training program (training benefits), which was denied in a determination issued on February 6, 2026. The claimant appealed the determination to the DUA hearings department. Following a hearing on the merits, the review examiner affirmed the agency’s initial determination and denied training benefits in a decision rendered on April 3, 2026. We accepted the claimant’s application for review.

Training benefits were denied after the review examiner concluded that the claimant had missed the application deadline and that his chosen training program was not necessary for him to obtain suitable employment in view of his education and experience. 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 is supported by substantial and credible evidence and is free from error of law in light of the DUA’s temporary suspension of the application deadline and the evidence demonstrating that the claimant is an approved Workforce Innovation and Opportunities Act (WIOA) trainee that has not been able to obtain a new job.

Findings of Fact

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

1. The claimant filed a claim with the Department of Unemployment Assistance (DUA) with an effective date of June 1, 2025. 
2. The claimant most recently worked as a quality assurance worker for a bio-medical company from [sic] fall 2024 until approximately the first week of June, 2025, when he was permanently laid off from work. 
3. The claimant has a bachelor’s degree in science and criminal justice. 
4. The claimant previously worked in security for several years. 
5. Prior to working in quality assurance, the claimant worked for five years in customer service and medical billing. 
6. The claimant received his first UI benefit payment on July 3, 2025. 
7. The claimant applied to over 100 quality assurance jobs and was not selected by the employers. The employers told the claimant that they had found better qualified applicants. 
8. In October 2025, the claimant submitted a Training Opportunities Program/Section 30 (TOP) application that indicated he would be attending school full-time in a Biomedical/Pharmaceutical Certification course (“the program”). 
9. The claimant obtained the TOP application online and completed it himself. 
10. The claimant is aware of the deadline for submitting a completed TOP application. 
11. The TOP application reads, in part, “Important! We cannot process the student’s application if any section of Part C is incomplete.” 
12. The claimant’s submitted TOP application was incomplete. 
13. The claimant submitted the TOP application a second time but it, too, was incomplete. 
14. On or after January 14, 2026, the claimant submitted a complete TOP application to the DUA.
15. The program requires 20 hours of classroom attendance each week. 
16. The placement rate for participants who complete the program is “90%.” 
17. The claimant signed up for the program because he will receive certifications he believes will make him more competitive in the job market for bio-medical quality assurance. 
18. The claimant began attending the program February 9, 2026. 
19. The claimant completed the program on March 27, 2026.

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. Finding of Fact 3 states that the claimant has a “bachelor’s degree in science and criminal justice.” We believe this was a scrivener’s error, as the claimant’s undisputed testimony was that he had a “bachelor of science degree in criminal justice.” In adopting the remaining findings, we deem them to be supported by substantial and credible evidence. However, as discussed more fully below, we disagree with the review examiner’s legal conclusion that the claimant is ineligible for 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 training programs, as well as the eligibility criteria for claimants seeking to participate in such programs. See 430 CMR 9.01–9.08. One of the criteria is that claimants must submit a Training Opportunities Program (TOP) application within the first 20 compensable weeks of their unemployment claim. G.L. c. 151A, § 30(c) and 430 CMR 9.02. During the hearing, the claimant maintained that his initial TOP applications were submitted within the 20-week application deadline, though there were problems with them. See Findings of Fact 12 and 13. 

Although we agree that his final application, filed on or about January 14, 2026, was submitted more than 20 compensable weeks after he began receiving unemployment benefits, we do not agree that he may be denied training benefits for this reason. See Finding of Fact 14. This is because, due to programming issues with its new database, the DUA has not been enforcing the 20-week application deadline until those issues are resolved. Since DUA is not currently enforcing the deadline, we decline to penalize the claimant for missing it.

Another requirement for obtaining training benefits is that the claimant must show that he is in need of training to become re-employed in appropriate employment. G.L. c. 151A, § 30(c). The DUA regulation at 430 CMR 9.03 further states, in relevant part:

(3) For purposes of 430 CMR 9.00, a claimant will be deemed unlikely to obtain suitable employment based on the claimant’s most recently utilized job skills and in need of training to become re-employed, if any of the following apply:

1. The claimant has applied for or is participating in a course or training program authorized by WIOA; . . . 

Finding of Fact 7 provides that the claimant applied for over 100 jobs in his prior field, quality assurance, without success. Although not in the findings, both the claimant and a representative from the MassHire Department of Career Services each testified that the claimant had been approved as a trainee under WIOA. The Massachusetts One Stop Employment System (MOSES) database confirms this. Inasmuch as the claimant participated in a training program authorized by WIOA, he is deemed to be unlikely to obtain suitable employment based on his most recently utilized job skills and in need of training to become re-employed. Thus, without even considering the claimant’s 100 fruitless job applications, the review examiner erred as a matter of law in concluding that the claimant did not establish that he needed this training program to become re-employed in appropriate employment.

We, therefore, conclude as a matter of law that the claimant was eligible for training benefits while he was enrolled in the Biomedical Pharmaceutical Certification course pursuant to G.L. c. 151A, § 30(c).

The review examiner’s decision is reversed. The claimant is entitled to receive an extension of up to 26 times his weekly benefit rate and a waiver of the availability and work search requirements, while attending this training program from the week beginning February 8, 2026 through March 28, 2026, if otherwise eligible.

Boston, Massachusetts                                              Date of Decision – June 12, 2026

1. We have supplemented the findings of fact, as necessary, with the unchallenged evidence before the review examiner. 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).

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