MAY, J.
In July 2007, Randolph violated parole and returned to prison. He asked that the remaining 127 days [footnote omitted] of his educational time credit be applied to the time he had to serve for the parole violation, but the IDOC refused his request.
. . . .
. . .The date on which Randolph would be eligible to be released on parole, prior to application of his educational credit, was October 30, 2008. The IDOC released Randolph on parole on April 21, 2007, which used 558 days of his 730 days of educational credit time.
After he was returned to prison for a parole violation, Randolph contends, he should have been entitled to apply the remaining 127 days of his educational credit time to reduce the time he had to serve following his parole violation. We cannot agree.
Randolph bases his argument on Renfroe v. Parke, 736 N.E.2d 797, 800 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), reh’g granted on other grounds, 743 N.E.2d 299 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), in which we held educational credit time, if not used in its entirety before the inmate is released on parole, can be applied to subsequent incarceration for parole violation. The trial court relied on IDOC v. Bogus, 754 N.E.2d 27 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). However, both of those cases were decided based on the 1993 version of Ind. Code §35-50-6-3.3, important portions of which have since been modified. Prior to 1995, subsection (d) of Ind. Code §35-50-6-3.3 provided: “Notwithstanding IC 35-50-6-5, a person may not be deprived of credit time earned under this section.” See Ind. Code § 35-50-6-7(d) (1993). The legislature deleted that subsection, which suggests the legislature intended to give the Department of Correction discretion whether to deprive prisoners of credit time earned.
The legislature also changed the manner in which the credit time is applied. In 1993, the statute provided credit time would be “subtracted from the period of imprisonment imposed on the person by the sentencing court.” Ind. Code § 35-50-6-3.3(e) (1993) (emphasis added). But when Randolph earned his educational credit, the credit time was to be “subtracted from the release date that would otherwise apply to the person after subtracting all other credit time earned by the person.” Ind. Code § 35-50-6-3.3(e) (2006) (emphasis added).
These changes made the educational credit time statute consistent with other credit time statutes in Indiana Code chapter 35-50-6, as all credit time is now subtracted from the release date of the offender. See Miller v. Walker, 655 N.E.2d 47, 48 n.3 (Ind. 1995) (indicating good time credit does not reduce sentence, but instead is applied to the number of days incarcerated).
Based on the new language of the statute, we cannot hold Randolph was entitled to the unused educational time credit. Randolph’s credit time was “subtracted from the release date that would otherwise apply,” Ind. Code § 35-50-6-3.3(e) (2006), which permitted him an earlier release to parole. Thus, Randolph received the benefit of his educational credit time. Had he obtained his degree earlier, or if the time remaining until his release date had been longer, he would have utilized more of the credit time that he earned. As he did not, it appears the legislature intended the remainder be lost. See, e.g., Ind. Code § 35-50-6-3.3(j) (“The amount of credit time earned under this section is reduced to the extent that application of the credit time would otherwise result in: (1) postconviction release (as defined in Ind. Code § 35-40-4-6); or (2) assignment of the person to a community transition program; in less than forty-five (45) days after the person earns the credit time.”).
BAKER, J., and BRADFORD, J., concur.