RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-03873
		INDEX NUMBER:  128.00
	XXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_____________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be made eligible for Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefits.

_____________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was miscounseled at Commissioned Officer Training (COT) that she was not eligible for GI Bill benefits due to her career status as a Dentist.  In support of her application, applicant provides two statements of support corroborating the miscounselling from other dentists that attended training with her.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_____________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts pertaining to this case are found in the evaluation prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force found at Exhibit C.

_____________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAT recommends denial of the applicant’s request.

38 USC, Chapter 30, Montgomery GI Bill, provides benefits for a variety of education and training programs, including those for dentists seeking additional training or certification.  The law stipulates all MGIB-eligible individuals are automatically enrolled in the MGIB upon entering active duty and are given a one-time opportunity to disenroll should they desire not to participate in the program.  They may disenroll after hearing a briefing.  The applicant’s records indicate a decision to disenroll on 9 Jul 98.

The individual that conducted the COT briefings during the time the applicant attended indicates that he always encouraged the officers to participate in the MGIB as they may want to continue or expand their education at a future date.  AFPC/DPPAT states that they reviewed the content and presentation of the COT briefing on 11 Jun 98 and found it to be correct.  They point out issues with the letters of support provided by the applicant.  The applicant has not presented any substantiated evidence of government error or miscounselling.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_____________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluation by pointing out what she considers several flaws in the logic contained in it.  Among her assertions is the fact that she submitted three statements from active duty Air Force officers, including her own, attesting to the validity of her claim.  She states that she has served five years as an Air Force dental officer and believes that she should have the same benefits as anyone else leaving active duty.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.
_____________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  While we cannot dispute whether or not the applicant was confused regarding her entitlements under the Montgomery GI Bill, we are not persuaded that she took all the actions within her means to get any vague issues clarified.  We note that the author of one of her letters of support chose to remain enrolled in the program unlike the applicant.  The same individual indicates that “five years later” she and the applicant “remain confused” regarding the MGIB.  If this is the case, why does the applicant now desire to enroll?  We do not find the evidence submitted by the applicant sufficient to determine that she has been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to grant the requested relief.

_____________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

_____________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2002-03873 in Executive Session on 1 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Nov 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPAT, dated 18 Feb 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Feb 03.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 12 Mar 03.