RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00757
		INDEX CODE:  100.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be enrolled in the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) contract was not honored.  The contract states he would be kept in the Inactive Reserves for up to 12 months, which the Air Force exceeded.  He indicates he was misinformed about the MGIB.  He was not on a scholarship and planned on pursuing an advanced degree using the MGIB.  The voided contract was one example of why he should be allowed to reenroll in the MGIB.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 6 September 1989, the applicant signed an AF Form 1056, Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) Contract.

On 25 May 1991, the applicant was commissioned in the Regular Air Force in the grade of second lieutenant.  The applicant was promoted to the grade of major effective and with a date of rank of 1 September 2002.

On 23 June 1992, the applicant signed a DD Form 2366, Montgomery GI Bill Act of 1984.  Block 3, Statement of Disenrollment, indicates the following:  “I do not desire to participate in the MGIB.  I understand that I WILL NOT be able to enroll at a later date.”

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAT recommended denial.  They indicated the applicant received an official MGIB briefing at Goodfellow AFB after entering active duty.  An education counselor gave the briefing.  The counselor provided a statement on 5 April 2004, which includes the following:  individuals could have 36 months of benefits “while…working towards a Master’s or Doctorate” and that the officers had a “one-time chance to sign up…and regardless whether they accepted or declined, they would not be able to change their minds…”  The counselor’s statement accurately reflects Air Force briefing requirements, as well as the requirements of 38 USC 3011.  The MGIB can be used for graduate school and individuals who have a one-time irrevocable opportunity to elect not to participate in the program.

The applicant believes his “commissioning records” erroneously show that he refused the option to accept the MGIB.  They believe the applicant is referring to the DD Form 2366, Montgomery GI Bill Act of 1984, on which he made the MGIB election and which the counselor witnessed.  The applicant also claims a staff sergeant misinformed him at the time he signed the enlistment contract and said the “voided contract is just one example of why he should be allowed to re-enroll in the MGIB.”  The ROTC enlistment contract is not void or the applicant would not have served nearly 12 years of active duty.  The applicant does not state how he was misinformed by the staff sergeant or present evidence supporting his application.  Any statement would, however, be irrelevant because the applicant received correct information at the official MGIB briefing by the counselor.  The applicant was given accurate information at the 23 June 1992 MGIB briefing and exercised his right to disenroll.  The applicant does not provide any evidence of wrongdoing or error on the part of the government.  Should the Board grant relief, the applicant will be contacted and directed to complete another DD Form 2366.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 16 April 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 an 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 our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or an injustice.  As we understand the issue, by law, all eligible individuals are automatically enrolled in the MGIB when entering active duty and are given one opportunity to disenroll from the program.  It appears the applicant was initially eligible and enrolled in the MGIB because his source of commission indicated he did not receive a Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) scholarship or professional officer course incentive (POCI) funds during the last school term prior to graduation and commissioning.  However, after entering active duty in 1991, he opted to disenroll from the MGIB on 23 June 1992 when he signed the DD Form 2366 indicating his desire to not participate in the MGIB and his understanding he would not be eligible to enroll at a later date.  Although the applicant indicates he was misinformed regarding the program, he has not submitted evidence that he was not properly counseled regarding his entitlement.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or an 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-00757 in Executive Session on 18 May 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 November 2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Military Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAT, dated 9 April 2004.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 April 2004.