MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           26 April 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000035850

	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.

	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		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:  That his Montgomery GI Bill benefits be given to him.

APPLICANT STATES:  That as part of an incentive to enlist he was given the choice of an enlistment bonus to be paid upon enlistment or the Montgomery     GI Bill to be paid after he had put up $1,200.  At the time of his unwanted discharge, he had already paid the $1,200, so the Army is obligated to complete the contract.  He provides no supporting evidence.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 March 1990.  He completed the Veterans’ Educational Assistance Act of 1984 (New GI Bill) form and enrolled in the New GI Bill.  By signing the form he acknowledged that he understood his basic pay would be reduced $100 per month for each of his first full 12 months of active duty and could not be refunded, suspended or stopped.  He also understood that he would have to complete three years of active service before he would be entitled to $300 per month for 36 months and that he would have to receive an honorable discharge for service which would establish entitlement to the New GI Bill.

On 24 September 1991, the applicant’s commander initiated separation action on him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct. The commander cited his one field grade Article 15, one company grade Article 15, a bar to reenlistment and numerous counseling occasions.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation and on 26 September 1991 he was discharged, with a general discharge under honorable conditions, after completing 1 year, 6 months and 14 days of creditable active service and no lost time.

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

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The applicant acknowledged at the time of his enlistment what the requirements were to enroll in and be entitled to the New GI Bill – that his $1,200 payment would be nonrefundable, that he must complete 3 years of active duty, that he must receive an honorable discharge.  The Board concludes that by his misconduct he broke the contract and that there is no obligation on the part of the Army.

3.  The New GI Bill is the responsibility of the Department of Veterans Affairs.  The applicant may wish to contact that agency for an exception to policy regarding his New GI Bill entitlements.

4.  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

__sk____  __kak___  __clg___  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000035850	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000426	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.