MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            2 November 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000040506

	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	
	Ms. Gale J. Thomas		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. William D. Barr		Member	
	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		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:  In effect, that her enlistment contract be corrected to show that she enrolled in the Army College Fund (ACF).  

APPLICANT STATES:  That when she entered active duty on 22 July 1996, her Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) 98G was eligible for the ACF, and that she met the Armed Forces Qualification Test requirement, but was never afforded the opportunity to enroll in the ACF.

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

She enlisted in the Regular Army on 22 July 1996 for a period of 5 years in MOS 98XL.  

The applicant’s DA Form 3286-67 (Statement of Understanding) shows that the applicant elected and initialed under “yes” for the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB), and elected not to participate in the Army College Fund and the Loan Repayment Program.  

The applicant authenticated a statement with her initials that she understood that she may be eligible for the ACF, and that a separate statement of understanding would be completed if she enlisted for the ACF. 

In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), which recommends that the applicant’s request be denied.  Their recommendation states that the ACF is an enlistment option which must be included in the individual’s initial enlistment agreement, normally 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.  After reviewing the applicant’s enlistment contract, PERSCOM determined that the applicant enlisted in an MOS that was eligible for the ACF, however, her contract does not contain a DA Form 3286-66, nor any other form promising the ACF.  Her contract does contain a DA Form 3286-67 in which she initialed “Yes” for MGIB and “No” for ACF.  Additionally, her DD Form 1966, block 20K, “Program Enlisted For” is coded “Q” which means Non-College Fund enlistment. 

Army Regulation 601-201, which prescribes the policies and procedures for enlistment contracts, states in pertinent part, that the Army College Fund enlistment option is available to qualified men and women, without prior service, who are enlisting in certain MOS’s for 2 or more years.  The options provides money for educational assistance in addition to that earned through the Montgomery GI Bill.  

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

1.  In view of the applicant’s initials and signature on her enlistment contact, specifically the DA Form 3286-67, it appears she accepted the MGIB, but declined the ACF enlistment option.   

2.  The applicant’s allegation regarding violation of rights is unsupported by the evidence of record.   

3.  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 a error or injustice occurred in this case.

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

___fne___  ___wdb__  ___tsk__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000040506	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20001102	
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.  113.00		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.