PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            24 May 2000                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR1999023967

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Walter Avery, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Member	
	Ms. Meta Waller		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 her period of enlistment be reduced from 6 years to 3 years.

3.  The applicant states that she initially wanted to enlist in the U. S. Army Reserve (USAR) for a 3-year enlistment.  On 30 March 1998 she enlisted into the USAR for a period of 6 years.  She enlisted for this longer period because she was told it would make her eligible for the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB).  The Department of Veterans Affairs eventually notified her that she was ineligible for the MGIB based on the fact that she had been an unsatisfactory participant while in the Air Force Reserve.  The applicant believes, in effect, she was unjustly misled into enlisting for the longer period of service.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that she enlisted in the U.S. Air Force Reserve on 8 January 1988 serving until her honorable discharge on 22 November 1995, completing her 8 year military service obligation.  On 30 March 1998 the applicant enlisted at pay grade E-5 for a 6-year enlistment in the USAR.  On the same day the applicant completed U.S. Army Recruiting Command (USAREC) Form 1122, Statement of Understanding-Army Policy, USAREC Addendum to DA Form 3540.  The applicant’s initials are in the block that reads MGIB, I understand the amount of the MGIB I am entitled to is $7521.48.

5.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the United States Army Reserve Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM), MGIB Program Manager.  It concludes that if a service member in any branch of service is declared an Unsatisfactory Participant that service member is no longer eligible for MGIB benefits.  AR-PERSCOM was unable to review the applicant’s enlistment contract, but opined the applicant should not be allowed an exception to the policy.  The advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment, but no response has been received as of this date.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board concludes that a government error occurred in this case.  The applicant’s argument is persuasive in that she enlisted for the longer 6-year enlistment with the understanding that she was eligible for the MGIB. The evidence in the form of the initialed USAREC Form 1122 substantiates the applicant’s argument in this regard.  The applicant had completed her 8-year military service obligation.  Therefore, she was eligible to enlist for a period less than 6 years.

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

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by amending the enlistment contract executed on 30 March 1998 to show that the applicant enlisted for a period of 3 years.

BOARD VOTE:  

___jns __  ____mdm  ___mw __  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		__________John N. Slone_______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999023967	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000524	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	103.01	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.