MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            26 October 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000043558

	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. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Melinda M. Darby		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. William D. Powers		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 Army College Fund (ACF) enlistment incentive be increased from $25,000 to $33,000.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he enlisted in the Delayed Entry Program on 
4 October 1996 and the ACF enlistment incentive and the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) for a 3 year enlistment totaled $25,000.  He states that in March 1997 the ACF enlistment incentive was increased to $33,000.  He states that he enlisted five months prior to the new ACF enlistment incentive and should be entitled to the increase benefit.  He contends that he did not enter active duty until 9 July 1997, which was after the new rates were authorized, he is entitled to receive the higher rate.  In support of his application the applicant submits DA Form 3286-66 (Statement of Understanding U. S. Army Enlistment Incentive Program) dated 
10 July 1997.

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

The applicant enlisted in the Army for military occupational specialty (MOS) 19D (Calvary Scout) on 10 July 1997.  His DA Form 3286-66 indicates he enlisted for a period of 3 years and the ACF totaling $25,000.

In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Education Incentives and Counseling Branch, Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM).

It advised that the ACF is an enlistment option which must be included in a soldier’s initial enlistment agreement, found on DA Form 3286-66.  Further, that the applicant’s DA Form 3286-66 correctly reflects he enlisted for the 3 - year ACF totaling $25,000.  The advisory opinion noted that on 2 April 1997 certain military occupational specialties were authorized the increased amount of $33,000.  The advisory opinion also stated the applicant enlisted for MOS 19D which was not authorized the higher amount and therefore recommended disapproval of his request for an increase to the ACF.

A copy of the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for comment/rebuttal.  The Board has not received a response.

Army Regulation 621-202 prescribes the policies, responsibilities, and procedures for administration of veteran’s education programs and educational incentives authorized by law.

Chapter 2, paragraph 14, of the same regulation defines eligibility for the ACF which requires eligibility for the MGIB, the ACF be included in the enlistment contract, remain enrolled in the MGIB, have an Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) score of 50 or above, qualify as a high school graduate before entry on active duty, and enlist in a critical MOS that has been designated for the ACF. 
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.  The Board notes at the time of the applicant’s enlistment his MOS 19D was an approved MOS for the ACF.  Additionally, his DA Form 3286-66 was included in his enlistment contract and correctly reflected that he enlisted for the 3 - year ACF totaling $25,000.

2.  The Board notes that the ACF was increased to $33,000 on 2 April 1997 for certain military occupational specialties.  The applicant’s MOS 19D was not designated as an approved MOS for an increase of the ACF that became effective 2 April 1997.  Therefore, he is not entitled to the increased ACF enlistment option amount of $33,000. 

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

_MMD    _  _  AAO   _  _  WDP  _  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000043558	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20001026	
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. 112		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.