PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:           19 May 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999023329

	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	
	Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Robert G. Hinkle		Member	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		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 his narrative reason for separation be changed to convenience of the government in order to receive his education benefits.

3.  The applicant states that he was honorably discharged less than 60 days from his expiration term of service (ETS) and had no intention on reenlisting.  He also states that he had no idea that his early release would disqualify him for his education benefits.  He further states that at the time of enlistment he requested enrollment in the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB), fulfilled his financial obligation to the MGIB, served his time and would like some assistance.  He concludes by stating that he took the initiative to return to college.

4.  The applicant’s military records show he entered active duty on 24 August 1989 for a period of 3 years as a light wheel vehicle mechanic.

5.  The applicant was AWOL for 3 days during the month of March 1992 (the exact dates unknown).

6.  The applicant was barred from reenlistment on 19 May 1992 for the aforementioned AWOL offense.

7.  On 26 May 1992, the applicant submitted a request to be discharged prior to his expiration of term of service (ETS) under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, paragraph 16-5, due to a locally imposed bar to reenlistment.

8.  The applicant was discharged on 1 July 1992 under the provisions of
AR 635-200, paragraph 16-5(b) due to a locally imposed bar to reenlistment.
He had completed 2 years, 10 months, and 8 days of creditable service.

9.  The applicant’s DA Form 3286-60 (Statement for Enlistment US Army Enlistment Options) shows in block 2(1) that he enlisted for the Army College Fund for 3 years/Award up to $12,000.

10.  The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for a change of his narrative reason for separation on 23 September 1998.  The ADRB determined that his discharge was proper and equitable and denied his change of narrative reason for separation on 4 December 1998.

11.  Army Regulation 601-280 prescribes the eligibility criteria and options available in the Army Reenlistment Program. Chapter 6 of the regulation provides for barring from reenlistment individuals whose continued active duty is not in the best interest of the military service.  This chapter specifies that bars will be used when immediate administrative discharge from active duty is not warranted. 

Examples of rationale for reenlistment disqualification are, but not limited to, AWOL, indebtedness, recurrent nonjudicial punishment, slow promotion progression, no demonstrated potential for future service, substandard performance of duties, and substandard appearance (overweight).

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 16 covers discharges caused by changes in service obligation.  Paragraph 16-5(b) applies to personnel who were denied reenlistment and provided that if they received a locally imposed bar to reenlistment, and were unable to overcome the bar, they may apply for
immediate separation.

13.  The GI Bill, as outlined in Title 38, United States Code, chapter 30, section 1411b, provides for soldiers who entered the service after 30 June 1985 to contribute $1,200.00 to the program during their first 12 months of service.  Participation in the program is automatic, unless the soldier voluntarily withdraws from the program at the time of processing into the Army at a reception station.  Under normal situations, the $1,200.00 contribution is nonrefundable.  The program is administered by the VA after the soldier is separated from active duty.

14.  Under VA regulations, service members must serve at least 20 months of a service obligation of less than 3 years, or 30 months of a service obligation of 3 years or longer to be eligible to qualify for the MGIB.  There are only four exceptions: 1) a discharge for a service-connected disability; 2) a hardship discharge; 3) a discharge for a pre-existing medical condition; or, 4) an involuntary separation due to reduction in force.  In all cases, the soldier’s service must be considered fully honorable.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was honorably discharged and completed over 34 months of service obligation to be eligible to qualify for the MGIB.

2.  The applicant requested an early separation for his convenience after he received a bar to reenlistment.  However, had he known that accepting the early separation would jeopardize his benefits, it is logical to presume that he would have remained in service to complete his service obligation in order to obtain full benefits under the MGIB.

3.  The Board noted that at the time of his separation from active duty, the applicant was less than 60 days from completing his enlistment, had no other record of disciplinary action, had successfully completed an oversea tour in Korea and had enrolled in the MGIB as indicated by his DA Form 3286-60 
and which appears to have merit considering that he went on to attend college.
4.  Notwithstanding the decision by the ADRB, which denied his change in narrative reason for separation, the ADRB stated that education benefits under the MGIB does not fall within the purview of the ADRB.  The ADRB also stated that the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.

5.  In view of the circumstances of this case, and in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to change his separation authority to AR 635-200, chapter 5-3, Secretarial Authority in order to allow the applicant to meet eligibility requirements for the MGIB.

6.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was honorably released from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-3, Secretarial Authority vice Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 16, locally imposed bar to reenlistment.

BOARD VOTE:  

JNS____  RGH_____  RWA____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		John N. Slone_________
		CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999023329	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990519	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19920701	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 110		
2. 100		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.