RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00006
		INDEX CODE:  135.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be entitled to the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefits.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He paid off his full amount before he was discharged.  He does not only deserve his money, but he earned it.  He really wants to fulfill a higher education because that was his goal before he entered the military.  However, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) denied his request for MGIB benefits because he did not receive an honorable discharge.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9 February 2000 for a period of four years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3).  Following his successful completion of basic military and technical training, he was assigned to duties as an environmental apprentice, on or about 10 August 2000.

The applicant received an Under Honorable Conditions (General) discharge because of misconduct on 5 December 2001.  He had served 1 year, 9 months and 27 days on active duty.

The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant’s request for an upgrade of discharge on 21 August 2002.  A copy of the AFDRB hearing record is attached at Exhibit B.

On 19 March 2003, the AFBCMR considered and denied applicant’s request that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.  A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit C.

On 28 August 2003, the AFBCMR considered and denied applicant’s request that his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be upgraded.  A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAT states that the DVA may award MGIB education benefits (38 USC Chapter 30) to individuals who receive an honorable separation or discharge.  In addition, the DVA cannot provide benefits to individuals who serve less than four years and are discharged for misconduct.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 20 February 2004, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  As stated, the DVA cannot provide benefits to individuals who serve less than four years and are discharged for misconduct.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in Executive Session on 23 June 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 23 Dec 03.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Records of Proceedings, dated 14 May 2003 and 
				23 Sep 2003, w/atchs.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPAT, dated 13 Feb 04.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Feb 04.

					Chair