SSR 68-3: Section 202(d).—Child's Insurance Benefits-Full-Time Student—Enrollee Under Manpower Development and Training Act
20 CFR 404.320(c)
Where the 21-year-old child of an insured worker attended on a full-time basis a school operated under the Manpower Development and Training Act, for which she received a weekly stipend for a training allowance, subsistence and travelling expenses, held, the child was not paid by her employer while attending school pursuant to a requirement of the employer; therefore, she was a "full-time student" within the meaning of section 202(d)(8)(A) of the Social Security Act and entitled to child's insurance benefits.
C, who attained age 22 in July 1966, was the child of a fully insured worker. She was selected and became a participant, beginning November 1965, in a training and skill development program conducted by the Manpower Development and Training Act school nearest to her community. She continued in a full-time attendance at this school through July 1966 and received a stipend of $20 weekly which covered a training allowance, her subsistence and traveling expenses. She neither performed nor was required to perform work of any nature. C filed application on July 7, 1966, for child's insurance benefits on her father's earnings record for the months November 1965 through June 1966.
The Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962 (P.L. 87-415), enacted March 15, 1962, established a Federally-sponsored program designed to restore to full productive capacity unemployed and underemployed persons in need of new or improved skills. This is to be accomplished by establishing diversified training programs including classroom instruction and on-the-job training. One of such programs, the training and skill development program, in which C was enrolled, provides for the testing, counseling, selection, and referral of youths for occupational training and further schooling. A weekly training allowance is also provided for the persons selected for training. These allowances are paid by the States as agents for the United States.
Sections 202(d)(1) and 202(d)(7) of the Social Security Act, as amended, provide, as pertinent here, that a child over age 18 may become entitled or reentitled to a child's insurance benefit if (among other requirements not here at issue) he is a full-time student and has not attained the age of 22.
A "full-time student," as defined in section 202(d)(8)(A) of the Act,
* * * is an individual who is in full-time attendance as a student at an educational institution, as determined by the Secretary * * * in the light of the standards and practices of the institution involved, except that no individual shall be considered a "full-time student" if he is paid by his employer while attending an educational institution at the request, or pursuant to a requirement, of his employer. (Emphasis supplied.)
Section 202(d)(8) of the Act further provides, in pertinent part, that:
(C) An "educational institution" is (i) a school or college or university operated or directly supported by the United States, or by any State or local government or political subdivision thereof, of (ii) a school or college or university which has been approved by a State or accredited by a State-recognized or nationally-recognized accrediting agency or body, * * *.
In this case the school which provided the training facility which the claimant used was an "educational institution" within the meaning of the Act. Since C has met all other requirements for entitlement to child's insurance benefits, the sole question presented is whether she was a "full-time student" within the meaning of section 202(d)(8)(A) of the Act despite the fact that she was being paid while attending the MDTA school.
In this case, C receiving training, subsistence and traveling allowances while attending school. These allowances are paid to MDTA trainees by the States as agents for the United States and the trainees are not employees of either the States or the United States. Since these allowances are not payment by an employer, the exclusion would not apply to trainees receiving them. The exclusion applies only where an employee-employer relationship exists and the student is paid by his employer for attending school. This is true with respect to the Job Corps, one of the programs under the Economic Opportunity Act, as illustrated by SSR 66-36, C.B. 1966, p. 9.
Accordingly, it is held that C was a "full-time student" within the meaning of section 202(d)(8)(A) of the Act during November 1965 through June 1966, and therefore she is entitled to child's insurance benefits for those months.