Eligibility of former students for partial tuition refunds. (Docket No. 8953, 86 F. C. 860, release July 9…

Eligibility of former students for partial tuition refunds. (Docket No. 8953, 86 F. C. 860, release July 9, 1976)

Opinion Letter

June 21 , 1976 Gentlemen:

This is to advise you that the Commission has given consideration to your submission under cover of your letter of April 26, 1976 , of questionnaires which you have sent out pursuant to the order in the above referenced matter and the determinations you have made with respect thereto regarding eligibility for tuition refund as prescribed by said order. In accordance with said order you have submitted said questionnaires for review by the Commission and an advisory opinion as prescribed in Section 3.61(d) of the Commission s Rule of Practice. Except as noted below, thc Commission has determined that your submission represcnts compliance with the applicable order provisions regarding eligibility of former Lear Siegler students for partial tuition refunds.

One questionnaire (Appendix 1) was determined by you to be not payable because, under item 7, the former student listed as his reason for not seeking a job in the computer field, the unavailability of jobs in the state where he lived. The Commission is of the opinion that this represents a legitimate excuse for not seeking cmp10ymcnt because it is related to job demand as specifically provided in Part III, paragraph 5( d)(2) of thc Commission s order. Accordingly the Commission is of the opinion that said student's c1aim for partial tuition should be honored. Three questionnaires (Appendices 2-4) were determined to be not payable because the formcr students failed to provide the information requestcd under item 4, the month and year in which they entered thc school. Such information is containcd in the computer printout which was furnished by you pursuant to Part III, paragraph 1 of the order under the cover of letter from your counsel dated October 31, 1975. Information contained in said printout indicates that the entry dates for both of the students rcpresented by the two questionnaires were within the eligibility period prescribed in the order. Accordingly, the Commission is of the opinion that the two students should be included in the refund for the amount of the tuition which they have indicated they paid.

Although the order does not spccifically provide for an advisory opinion pertaining to the amount of moncy which is to form the basis for computing pro rata refunds, thc Commission has found scvcral qucstionnaires in which it feels that your determination of the amount

87 F.

of tuition paid by the student was in error. In four of the questionnaires (Appendices 5 through 8) the Commission has noted that monies indicated as downpayments were not included as tuition paid by the student. Since the order does not specifically exclude down payments from the amount which is refundable, the Commission is of the opinion that such money should be included in the basis for making the refund computation.

Finally in four additional questionnaires , (Appendices 9-12) the Commission has noted that obvious errors were made by the students in responding to item no. 15. By reviewing the entire questionnaire rather than focusing on item 15, it becomes clear that the amount of money entered thereunder was in fact a loan rather than a gift and therefore should be included in the basis used for computing tuition refunds.

It is the opinion of the Commission, based upon the information furnished that with the twelve exceptions noted hereinabove, your eligibility determinations under Part III, paragraph 5 of the Commission s order represent compliance with that provision to the extent that your obligations under other order provisions have been fulfi1ed. This opinion is not intended to apply to any other duties or obligations imposed upon you by the order other than your responsibility under Part III to make initial determinations as to who constitutes eligible class members for purposes of the required tuition refunds. The Commission has also reviewed the cases of three individuals whose responses to the questionnaires were received too late to be considered with the others. In all three cases, the names and addresses were known prior to December 29, 1975 , but due to oversights of various parties, these individuals did not receive questionnaires in a timely manner. (1) Gary Bise s name and full address was on the list of persons eligible to receive questionnaires, but he did not receive one; (2) Craig O'Nea1's name and address was left off said list due to clerical error on the part of Commission staff; and (3) Richard H. Fuller, Sr.'s name and partial address was on the list of persons eligible to receive a questionnaire, but he did not receive one. Gary Eise s questionnaire (Appendix 13) and an affidavit of telephonc interviews of Craig O'Neal and Richard H. Fuller, Sr. (Appendix 14) have been reviewed, and the Commission considers Bise , O':\eal and Fuller to be eligible for a partial tuition refund on the basis of the information each has provided.

ADVISORY OPINIONS 1469

The studcnt questionnaires are being returned to you under separate

cover. *
By direction of the Commission.
Letter of Reg.uest