MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           23 October 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001057133

	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. Edmund P. Mercanti		                         Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Chairperson	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub		Member	
	Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaughnessy		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 records be corrected to show that he enlisted for the Army College Fund (ACF).

APPLICANT STATES:  His primary reason for enlisting was to obtain college benefits.  After he had selected his military occupational specialty (MOS) and began his enlistment process, he was told by his recruiter that he would receive both the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) and a $20,000.00 “kicker” for college.  When he was initialing and signing his enlistment contract and addenda, he specifically asked why he was initialing “No” for the ACF.  His recruiter told him that his “kicker” fell under a different incentive program.  Based on that assurance, the applicant completed his enlistment contract and served his required service honorably.  Now that he has completed his enlistment he has attempted to use his educational benefit “Kicker”, but has discovered that the “Kicker” was, in fact, the ACF.  The applicant adds that since his test scores and MOS qualified for the ACF, he doesn’t understand why his recruiter lied to him.

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

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 19 November 1996.  At that time he completed enlistment contracts and addenda to elect the MOS of network switching systems operator/maintainer and the MGIB.  At that time he signed a form which stated “I have read and understand the statements above and that these statements are intended to constitute ALL promises and guarantees whatsoever concerning my enlistment.  No other (verbal or otherwise) promise or representation not annexed to my enlistment contract is valid or will be honored.  I hereby state that I have NOT been promised anything other than what is written on this form and hereby waive any claim based upon any promise or representation not annexed to my contract.”

The applicant honorably completed his enlistment and was released from active duty at the expiration of his term of service on 18 November 2000.

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

1.  The applicant did not sign the addendum required for the ACF.  As such, he is not entitled to that enlistment incentive.

2.  The applicant has claimed that his MOS qualified for the ACF at the time of his enlistment and has claimed that his recruiter told him that he was entitled to the ACF.  However, he has not submitted any evidence to support either of those allegations.

3.  The applicant enlisted primarily for the training of choice enlistment option.  He, himself, has stated that he chose his training before he was told he would receive the ACF.  With that sequence of events, it would appear that the training for which the applicant was enlisting was a higher priority than the ACF at the time of his enlistment.  Furthermore, he certified, by his signature, that he was not promised anything that wasn’t contained in his enlistment contract.  

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

__alr ____  ____teo _  ___slp__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001057133	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20011023	
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.	128.04	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.