MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           31 August 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000038802

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

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. Joe R. Schroeder		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 her records be corrected to allow her to qualify for the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB).

APPLICANT STATES:  That she was not counseled prior to separation that she only needed to serve a few additional days or weeks to become eligible for MGIB benefits.  She believes this to be unjust.

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

She enlisted into the Army on 28 August 1989 with a four-year enlistment.  She was trained as a Cargo Specialist.  

On 28 August 1989 the applicant signed a Veterans’ Educational Assistance Act of 1984 (New GI Bill) form.  In 1985 the name of the program was changed to the MGIB.  By signing this form she indicated that she understood the requirement to complete three years of active duty service before she would become entitled to educational benefits. 

On 15 January 1992 the applicant affirmed by her signature that she had been counseled and understood her entitlements and responsibilities.

On 21 January 1992 the applicant requested separation for reasons of pregnancy per AR 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel), chapter 8 and that she desired to remain on active duty until 27 January 1992.

On 30 January 1992, the applicant indicated by her initials, a Transition Counseling Acknowledgement Checklist that she wanted to receive educational benefits counseling.  The form is initialed by another person indicating that the requested counseling was provided.

On 4 February 1992 the applicant signed a Personnel Action Form again requesting separation under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 8 for pregnancy.  She also indicated on the form that she wanted to be separated as soon as possible.

On 6 February 1992 the proper authority approved the applicant’s request for separation.

A DD Form 214 (Separation Document) indicates the applicant was honorably discharged on 12 February 1992, with 2 years, 5 months, 15 days active service credit under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 8, pregnancy.

The MGIB, as outlined in Title 38, United States Code, chapter 30, section l4llb, provides for soldiers who entered the service after 30 June l985, to contribute $l,200.00 during their first l2 months service.  After completion of their service obligation, he or she is entitled to up to $300.00 per month educational benefits for 36 months.  The program is administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

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 qualify for the MGIB the governing law required the completion of three years active duty service.  The applicant at the time of separation needed an additional period of 6 months, 15 days of active duty service to meet the 36 month requirement.  The applicant did not complete the three year active duty service as required.  Therefore, her application must be denied.

2.  The applicant contends she was not counseled regarding her educational benefits; however, the applicant signed a form during enlistment and two forms during the separation process to verify that she was counseled and understood her education benefits.  The Board must find that the applicant was properly counseled regarding the status of her education benefits.  The evidence available does not support her contention in this matter.

3.  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

___sac __  ____bje__  ___jrs___  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000038802	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000831	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.