RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01533
		INDEX NUMBER:  128.00
	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His decision not to participate in the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) be voided and he be allowed to enroll in the MGIB.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When he entered active duty from the Air National Guard, the recruiter marked his rank wrong, but advised him it would be corrected instantly when he arrived at his assigned duty station.  This was not the case and it actually took nine months.  The error caused a problem with his pay and was ongoing when he was briefed on participation in the MGIB.  He requested disenrollment from the MGIB because of his pay problems with the understanding that he could enroll later after the pay problems were resolved.  He later found he could not enroll after having elected previously to disenroll.  He was also not made aware of a period between Dec 88 and Jun 89 when he could have enrolled in the program.

In support of his appeal, applicant provides a detailed statement with supporting documents.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered active duty in the Air Force as an enlisted member in 1988.  On 7 Jul 88, he declined participation in the MGIB.  In 1999, the applicant was commissioned as an officer in the Air Force.  He is presently serving on active duty in the grade of captain.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date is 29 May 87.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAT recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  The applicant offers no evidence that the Education Office counselor miscounseled him or promised that he could later reverse the decision not to participate in the MGIB.  Additionally, after 16 years, it is not possible for the government to confirm or deny the facts surrounding his counseling and election.

As a direct duty airman, the Education office would have counseled the applicant.  In addition to the printed statement warning him about the implication of disenrolling, the applicant wrote, “No I do not want G.I. Bill” on the form.  The applicant’s pay problems were resolved shortly after he signed the DD Form 2366 and before any money would have been taken from his pay.  Pay documents show that the applicant was not paid regularly for only two months.  Also, had the applicant accepted the MGIB, the $100 per month pay reduction would not have occurred until he was paid on a regular basis.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the Air Force evaluation, the applicant explains in greater detail the circumstances that led to his decision not to participate in the MGIB.  He points out he did not believe he could afford to participate in the MGIB due to his pay problems.  He did not believe at the time he disenrolled from the MGIB his pay and grade problems would be quickly fixed.  He also explains why he waited so long to seek correction of his record from the AFBCMR.  The applicant states that the one-strike policy governing participation in the MGIB is not reasonable.  He believes individuals who commit themselves to the Air Force beyond the initial four years should be given another opportunity to enroll, especially when there are mitigating circumstances.  He also believes that individuals whose status changes from enlisted to officer should be given another opportunity to enroll in the program.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

In considering the applicant’s appeal, the Board noted should it grant the requested relief, the applicant, in all likelihood, would be required to pay the $1200.00 MGIB enrollment cost, possibly in lump sum.  In view of this, a letter was sent to the applicant asking whether he was aware of this and, if so, still desired the Board to consider the requested relief (Exhibit F).  The applicant responded he was willing to pay the $1200.00 and desired the Board continue to process his application.

The applicant’s response is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  The majority of the Board believes the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s pay at the time of his election played a key role in his decision to disenroll from the MGIB.  Although his pay problems were resolved before any money would have been deducted from his pay, the majority of the Board finds his decision at the time reasonable, given the uncertainty he had about his pay account.  We believe the unique circumstances of this case justify an exception to the normal policy barring enrollment in the MGIB after initially electing to disenroll.  Therefore, the majority of the Board recommends the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 7 July 1988, he executed DD Form 2366, Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 1984 (New GI Bill), and elected to enroll in the “New GI Bill.”

___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2004-01533 in Executive Session on 5 October 2004 and 26 October 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

By majority vote, the Board voted to correct the records, as recommended.  Mr. XXXXX voted to deny the applicant’s request, but did not elect to submit a minority report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Apr 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPAT, dated 27 Jul 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Aug 04.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 16 Sep 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Oct 04.
    Exhibit G.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 12 Oct 04.

AFBCMR BC-2004-01533

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that on 7 July 1988 he executed DD Form 2366, Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 1984 (New GI Bill), and elected to enroll in the “New GI Bill.”