MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            24 March 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1998012136

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James E. Vick		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, to be allowed to enroll in the Montgomery G.I. Bill (MGIB).

APPLICANT STATES:  He was given incorrect information concerning his eligibility to enroll in the MGIB when he entered on active duty in the Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) program.  When he discovered the error of that information in June 1992, he had $1,200.00 deducted from his pay for the MGIB.  However, the VA will not give him MGIB benefits.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He was commissioned a second lieutenant in April 1986, was ordered to 3 years of active duty in the AGR program with a reporting date of 8 December 1991, and was promoted to captain.  The applicant was serving on active duty in the rank of captain when he submitted his application to the Board.

Public Law 98-525 authorized individuals entering active duty for the first time after 1 July 1985 to enroll in the MGIB.  However, due to widespread confusion an MGIB open season was authorized from 1 December 1988 to 30 June 1989 for officers and enlisted personnel who entered active duty after 1 July 1985, but did not enroll in the MGIB.  Subsequent to that open season it was discovered that officer enrollment was still a matter of confusion and an officer open season was established from 15 April to 15 July 1992.  To assist in getting the word out about this open season, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service authorized a message on all mid-month April 1992 LES’s, directing all officers to contact their education centers for counseling on the MGIB.  In addition, a message concerning the open season was forwarded to all Army education centers for widest dissemination; the Army Times ran articles; and local publications were advised through their local education centers.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant entered on active duty after the effective date of the MGIB and was on active duty for the second open season for MGIB enrollment.

2.  For that matter, the date of his discovery, June 1992, was in the middle of an open season.  All he had to do was contact his education center at that time, as he was directed to do on his LES.

3.  The Board must conclude that the applicant did not want the MGIB when he entered on active duty and later changed his mind.  Unfortunately, a declination of the MGIB is not reversible.

4.  While confusion may have existed on officers’ entitlements to the MGIB, the Board is satisfied that the Army did everything that could reasonably be expected to allow eligible officers to enroll in the program.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_JEV____  _RWA___  __ALR__  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1998012136	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990324	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	128.05	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.