RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  04-00175
		INDEX CODE:  100.03
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be eligible for the Veterans' Education Assistance Program (VEAP) or the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB). 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The DD Form 2057, Contributory Educational Assistance Program Statement of Understanding, he signed on 30 December 1981 and 29 July 1982, states that although he elects not to participate in the VEAP, he can enroll in the program at any time during his service on active duty.  He has made several attempts over his enlistment to enroll and has been denied every time.  He truly feels that if he was given the opportunity to contribute one dollar, prior to the VEAP being discontinued, he would not have the problems he is faced with today.  He was never made aware that the written agreement between him and the Air Force would become invalid.  The Air Force should have made everyone sign a new DD Form 2057, to ensure everyone knew that the educational benefits would change permanently.  

In support of his request, applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 2057.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. 

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 31 January 2004, the applicant was relieved from active duty and was retired in the grade of master sergeant (E-7) effective 1 February 2004.  Applicant was credited with 22 years and 23 days of total active duty service for basic pay and 21 years, 6 months and 12 days active service for retirement.  

On 30 December 1981, applicant signed the DD Form 2057, Contributory Educational Assistance Program, electing not to enroll in the VEAP.  However, the form stated he could enroll in the program at any time during his service on active duty. 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to his VEAP, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAT recommends the application be denied.  DPPAT states that approval of the applicant’s request will violate the law.  The applicant did not make a timely request nor provide evidence of government error or injustice.  DPPAT advises that the government made a concerted effort to advertise the need for individuals to enroll in VEAP prior to its termination.  The AFPC/DPPAT evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reiterates that he was never informed that he could contribute one dollar but that he needed to contribute 12 monthly installments of $100.  He states that the Air Force never briefed him on the MGIB legislation and they should have briefed him and had him sign a statement documenting the change.  He is willing to pay the dollar amount necessary to enroll in the MGIB.   Applicant’s letter 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  The applicant asserts he made several attempts over his enlistment to enroll in the Veterans’ Education Assistance Program (VEAP) or the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) but has provided no documentary evidence to support this claim.  We are unaware of any requirement that the applicant should have been personally briefed regarding the changes from the VEAP and MGIB, as he seems to believe.  If, as the applicant claims, he began his attempts to enroll after the 1982 through 1987 window of opportunity, based on the law at that time, it would appear that his requests were properly denied.  We believe that the Air Force made adequate efforts to advertise the need for individuals to open a VEAP account if they desired any veteran’s education benefits.  We do not find the evidence submitted by the applicant sufficient to determine that he has been the victim of an error or injustice or that he was treated differently than other similarly situated service members.  Therefore, we agree with the assessment by the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their conclusion as our findings in the case.  

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable 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 12 May 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Jan 04, w/atch.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, APFC/DPPAT, dated 25 Mar 04.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Apr 04.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 19 Apr 04.

                                  Panel Chair