The extension of benefits means that they get the same reduced rate, limited foreclosure, etc. that the servicemember gets. But it only applies to the covered loans, those on which the servicemember is obligated.
So an obligation underwritten based on a spouses qualifications, not the servicemembers, would not be covered. In theory no benefit is necessary because it stands alone. How this may be interpreted in community property states may be another matter. One could argue there is no obligation unless the servicemember is signed on the note, conversely the Cockerham vs Cockerham case said that wasn't always necessary. I would also wonder if the debt was secured by community property even with a consent to pledge executed, would that allow forclosure or repossession. Hopefully I won't have to seek the answers to these questions.
My opinions are not necessarily my employers.
Rules and Regs minus Relationships equals Resentment and Rebellion. John Maxwell