RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02743 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His AF Form 1056, Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) Contract, dated 8 Jan 97, “Type of Scholarship” and “Length of Scholarship” be changed from “POCI” and “2 years” to blank. 2. A checkmark be applied to the “Professional Officer Corps (POC) box and correct errors on all paper and electronic documents. 3. A new AF Form 1056 be created. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He never received a scholarship requiring additional service under 10 USC §2107. The Professional Officer Course Incentive (POCI) he received is/was not a scholarship. The POCI subsistence allowance is covered under 37 USC §209, sub-section (a), which explicitly states that it "may not be considered financial assistance requiring additional service." He only received $850 from the ROTC per school semester, an amount indicating he did not receive an academic scholarship. Also, this amount was well below semester tuition costs. This error caused him problems in Aug 00 when he initially applied to use the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB). His ROTC Detachment, however, corrected the error via a letter. He thought the error was resolved, especially since his original Post-9/11 GI Bill application showed his "begin date" for creditable service as 11 Sep 01 (1054 days). However, at some point between 2009 and his actual usage in 2013, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) changed his "begin date" for creditable service from 11 Sep 01 to 15 Dec 02 (593 days). This reduced his eligibility from 90 percent to 70 percent without warrant or explanation other than the DVA was calculating his total military service based upon a scholarship-recipient who incurred a service obligation.In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his AFROTC contract; MGIB contract; college financial statements, and DVA Certificates of Eligibility. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 8 Jan 97, the applicant signed his AFROTC contract, acknowledging and accepting the Professional Officer Course Incentive (POCI). ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFROTC/CC recommends denial, stating in part, that based on a preponderance of evidence, the applicant received scholarship funds. CC states that the applicant’s records were properly reviewed through all levels at AFROTC and the decision reflects a fair, consistent and impartial evaluation against all AFROTC cadets on a national level. On 8 Jan 97, the applicant signed his AF Form 1056, acknowledging and accepting the Professional Officer Course Incentive (POCI). AFROTC records indicate that he received POCI funds, which was confirmed in his request as well. The POCI was through the AFROTC scholarships budget. AFROTC, therefore, has confirmed the applicant was given scholarship funds and that his detachment correctly coded his commissioning records as having received assistance via scholarship funds. Congress later changed Title 10 to accommodate the POCI, but it had no provision for retroactive changes. The complete AFROTC/CC evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 19 Sep 13 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was timely file. 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 office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2013-02743 in Executive Session on 3 April 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Jun 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFROTC/CC, dated 29 Aug 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Sep 13. 1 2