PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:            20 May 1999  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1998014063

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

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher		Chairperson	
	Mr. Hubert O. Fry. Jr.,		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests that he be entitled to the Army College Fund (ACF) and receive back pay from the 21 months that he collected just the Montgomery G. I. Bill (MGIB).

3.  The applicant states that when he was in basic training, he signed up for the MGIB but, since he was not considered to be in a combat military occupational specialty (MOS), he was told he was not eligible for the ACF.  He had enlisted for training in MOS 31V.  When soon thereafter 31V was combined with 31K and changed to 31U, he was too naïve and too busy to question whether the new MOS made him eligible for the ACF.  After training, he was assigned to an infantry unit and went everywhere they went.  He cannot see how his MOS couldn’t be considered a combat MOS.  He recently started to question his eligibility.  When he talked to personnel at the U. S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), he was told that MOS 31U was, in fact, eligible for the ACF in August 1992.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he entered the Delayed Entry Program on 16 October 1991.  He enlisted for training in MOS 31V and airborne training.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 August 1992 for 4 years.  The enlisted MOS structure was shortly thereafter restructured and MOS 31V was combined with MOS 31K into MOS 31U.  On 30 September 1992, the applicant waived his enlistment option for MOS 31V and accepted training in MOS 31U.  He also initialed, on DA Form 3286-67, that he enlisted for the MGIB education incentive program but not the ACF.

5.  The applicant completed training in MOS 31U, performed duties in that MOS for the rest of his enlistment, and was separated on 26 August 1996 upon his expiration term of service (ETS).

6.  Eligibility criteria for the Army College Fund are (1) meet the eligibility criteria for the MGIB; (2) have the ACF included in the enlistment agreement, DA Form 3286-66; (3) remain enrolled in the MGIB (the MGIB is an entitlement under the law; the ACF is additional money that is added to the MGIB by the U. S. Army); (4) have an Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) score of 50 or above; (5) qualify as a high school diploma graduate before entry on active duty; and (6) enlist in a critical MOS.  The ACF is available for 2, 3 or more years of enlistment.  It accrues at a monthly rate until the maximum benefits are earned as long as the soldier remains qualified in MOS for which enlisted.  The ACF must be included on the enlistment agreement at the time of enlistment, entered on the DA Form 3286-66.  

7.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Education Incentives Branch, PERSCOM.  That office recommended disapproval of the applicant’s request.  That office noted that the ACF is an enlistment option which must be included in the individual’s initial enlistment agreement, usually found on the DA Form 3286-66, Statement of Understanding U. S. Army Incentive Enlistment Program and is not a program for which an individual becomes eligible after enlistment.  That office carefully reviewed his enlistment contract.  MOS 31V was authorized the ACF; he met the AFQT requirement; MOS 31U also was authorized the ACF.  However, his contract does not include a DA Form 3286-66.  To the contrary, DA Form 3286-67 shows he initialed “No” for the ACF and his DD Form 1966/1, block 20K, is coded “Q” which means non-college fund enlistment.

8.  The applicant rebutted this advisory opinion.  He argues that he was not told he was eligible for the ACF.  He has no tangible proof, but it does not make sense that he would sign up for an education incentive program that he had to pay for (the MGIB) and not sign up for an additional program that he would not have had to pay for (the ACF) if he had been told that he was eligible.  He checked the box that said “no” because he was instructed to do so by the non-commissioned officer in charge.  He was a brand-new recruit; he did what he was told to do.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board concludes that a Government error occurred in this case.  The applicant’s argument is persuasive that had he been told he was eligible for the ACF he would have signed up for it.  The Board agrees that it makes no sense for him not to have signed up for a no-cost education incentive program when he did sign up for the MGIB, for which he had to share costs.  From the applicant’s frequent use of the phrase “combat MOS,” the Board concludes that his recruiters misunderstood “critical MOS” to mean “only combat MOS” and so assumed his enlistment MOS was not eligible for the ACF.  He would have been eligible for the ACF at the time of his enlistment under either MOS 31V or 31U, as the advisory opinion from PERSCOM agrees.

2.  In view of the foregoing and notwithstanding the advisory opinion, it would be in the interest of justice to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by:

     a.  showing that the applicant completed DA Form 3286-66, Statement of Understanding, US Army Incentive Enlistment Program, on 16 October 1991 to show he did enlist for the Army College Fund DA Form;

     b. amending his DA Form 3286-67 to show that he enlisted for the MGIB education incentive program and the ACF; and

     c.  amending his DD Form 1966/1 to show that his enlistment was an Army College Fund enlistment.

2.  That the applicant be paid any Army College Fund payments to which he would be entitled as a result of the above corrections.

BOARD VOTE:  

__emw___  __hof___  __mvt___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

			Ernest M. Willcher
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1998014063	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990520	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	112.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.