38 U.S.C. § 2014

Training and technical assistance for recipients of certain financial assistance

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 38 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)In General.—The Secretary shall provide training and technical assistance to recipients of grants under sections 2011 and 2013 of this title and recipients of per diem payments under sections 2012 and 2061 of this title regarding the planning, development, and provision of services for which the grant or payment is made.(b)Provision of Training and Technical Assistance.—The Secretary may provide training and technical assistance under subsection (a) directly or through grants or contracts with such public or nonprofit private entities as the Secretary considers appropriate.(Added Pub. L. 117–328, div. U, title III, § 305(b)(1)(B), Dec. 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 5471.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 2014 was renumbered section 2016 of this title.

Another prior section 2014 was renumbered section 4214 of this title.

Another prior section 2014 was renumbered section 4105 of this title.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesUse of Amounts

Pub. L. 117–328, div. U, title III, § 305(b)(2), Dec. 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 5472, provided that: “The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall provide training and technical assistance under sections 2014 and 2015 of such title [meaning title 38, United States Code], as inserted by paragraph (1)(B), using amounts appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Veterans Affairs on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 29, 2022].”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1981–1989 · leading case: Int'l Union, United Auto., Aerospace, & Agric. Implement Workers v. Brock, 477 U.S. 274 (1986).
Int'l Union, United Auto., Aerospace, & Agric. Implement Workers v. Brock, 477 U.S. 274 (1986). · cites it 2× “§ 2013 , and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, 38 U. S. C. §§ 2014 , 2024, petitioners sought a declaration that the interpretation was improper and an injunction requiring the Secretary both to notify all cooperating state agencies of the invalidity…”
Bey v. Bolger, 540 F. Supp. 910 (E.D. Pa. 1982). · cites it 2× “§ 1003 (b); Section 403(a) of the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, 38 U.S.C. § 2014 (a); and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
Ronald J. Roche v. United States Postal Serv., 828 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “38 U.S.C. § 2014 (b)(1)(D) (Supp. III 1985); 5 C.”
Robert Warren v. Dep't of the Army, 867 F.2d 1156 (8th Cir. 1989). “Warren is a black male who was employed by the Department of the Army as a temporary booking and binding clerk under the Veterans Readjustment Act, 38 U.S.C. § 2014 . Fired after eight months on the job, he subsequently filed charges of race and sex discrimination against the…”
Daniel J. Miller, Jr. v. United States of Am. & Dep't of the Army, 753 F.2d 270 (3rd Cir. 1985). “The Army acted after discovering that Miller’s college degree rendered him overqualified for that position under 38 U.S.C. § 2014 (1976); it refused to request a variance from government regulations that would have permitted Miller to retain his job.”
Michael R. McCauley v. Kenneth J. Thygerson, President, Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 732 F.2d 978 (D.C. Cir. 1984). “V 1981) (Title VII); 38 U.S.C. § 2014 (c) (1976 & Supp. V 1981) (Veterans Readjustment Act of 1974); 29 U.”
Daniel J. Miller, Jr. v. United States of Am. & Dep't of the Army, 717 F.2d 109 (3rd Cir. 1983). · cites it 2× “The Army did so after discovering that Miller’s college degree rendered him overqualified for that position under 38 U.S.C. § 2014 (1976). Miller appealed the discharge to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which dismissed his appeal on jurisdictional grounds.”
Guillermo Collaso, Jr. v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 775 F.2d 296 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “The VRA, as amended, 38 U.S.C. § 2014 , extends (up to September 30, 1986) to “veterans of the Vietnam era” eligibility to veterans readjustment appointments with the federal government.”
Sipes v. United States, 744 F.2d 1418 (10th Cir. 1984). “Plaintiff’s reliance on the goals behind the Vietnam Veterans’ Readjustment Act, see Appellant’s Brief 13-16 (citing 38 U.S.C. § 2014 , Executive Order 11521, and Manual ch.”
Eddie Jakes v. Vets. Admin., 793 F.2d 293 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “” 38 U.S.C. § 2014 (a) (1982). In other words, Vietnam veterans were to be provided job opportunities which, because of lack of training and education, might not otherwise be available.”
Fahy v. United States, 14 Cl. Ct. 470 (Ct. Cl. 1988). “§ 3302 note at 525-26 (1982); and 38 U.S.C. § 2014 (1982). Regulations governing these appointments appear in Part 307 of Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations.”
Renard v. New Cumberland Army Depot, United States Army, 533 F. Supp. 451 (M.D. Penn. 1982). “1 Plaintiff received a veterans read *453 justment appointment from defendant pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 2014 and 5 C.F.R. § 307.101 et seq.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.