MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           25 April 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2001063816

	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. Joann H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. George D. Paxson		Member	
	Mr. Charles Gainor		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 she be authorized $50,000 in Army College Fund (ACF) benefits.

APPLICANT STATES:  The ACF was increased to $50,000 on 12 November 1998 for a four-year enlistment.  Since she enlisted on 16 November 1998 for five years, she should be given the higher ACF amount.

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

She enlisted in the Army Delayed Entry Program (DEP) on 14 October 1998.  In conjunction with her enlistment, she opted for the ACF enlistment incentive.  In all the documents pertaining to the ACF, the amount $30,000 was entered and initialed by the applicant.  In one document, her recruiter lined out $40,000 and entered in $30,000

She enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 November 1998 for 5 years in pay grade E-4.  She is currently serving on active duty in pay grade E-5.

In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM).  The PERSCOM stated that while the applicant contracted for the $30,000 ACF, since she enlisted four days after the ACF for her military occupational specialty (MOS) was increased to $40,000, the PERSCOM has updated their database to show the applicant is entitled to a $40,000 ACF.  The PERSCOM stated that the applicant’s MOS did not qualify for the higher $50,000 ACF.  The applicant was provided a copy of this advisory opinion and given an opportunity to respond.  No response was received from the applicant.

The ACF is an incentive program which was available to Regular Army enlistees who participated in the Montgomery GI Bill.  In addition to the monthly monetary educational benefits given to soldiers who participated in the MGIB, the Army also provided a “kicker” in the form of the ACF, which was a set amount of money which was determined by the length of an enlistment and the MOS chosen.

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, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant is correct in that the ACF had increased to a maximum of $50,000 prior to her enlistment in the Regular Army.  

2.  However, the applicant’s MOS was not on the list of those skills authorized the maximum ACF amount of $40,000 when she enlisted in the DEP.  Her MOS was authorized the lesser amount of $30,000.  In the same manner, when the ACF was increased to a maximum of $50,000, her MOS was only authorized the lesser amount of $40,000.  As such, the PERSCOM could only increase the applicant’s ACF entitlement from $30,000 to $40,000.

3.  The applicant enlisted for the $30,000 ACF.  As such, that is all she was entitled to receive.  However, the PERSCOM authorized her the $40,000 ACF as a matter of equity.  It is the opinion of the Board that the PERSCOM has more than corrected any injustice that may have existed in this case, and that no further action by the Board is required.

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

___cg____  ___gdp _  ___jhl___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001063816	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020425	
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.	107.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.