ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:		DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02144
		INDEX CODE: 110.00
 						COUNSEL:  NONE
			  		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show he elected to participate in the Montgomery G.I. Bill (MGIB) program. 

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 8 December 2004, the Board considered and denied a similar appeal.  For an accounting of the facts surrounding his previous request and the rationale of the Board's earlier decision, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit E.

On 13 January 2008, the applicant requested the Board reconsider his request.  He provided an excerpt from the Basic Training Manual II, dated 1 February 2001, which he asserts provides the information that erroneously led him to decline.  

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.  

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial.  DPSIT states there is no evidence to support that he declined the MGIB based on incorrect data but there is evidence that he is attempting to project blame on the government.  Title 38 U.S.C., Chapter 30, states that the same period of service used for loan repayment cannot be used to qualify for the MGIB.  The loan repayment option is a recruiting incentive to attract an individual into the military.  During Basic Military Training (BMT) recruits are automatically enrolled in the MGIB but may elect to decline participation.  Recruits offered the ECLRP as part of their enlistment contracts are advised they can qualify for both the ECLRP and MGIB if they serve a second period of service.  In DPSIT’s initial view of his request dated 10 June 2004, they noted that he was not offered the ECLRP as an enlistment option and elected to decline the MGIB.  In the interest of justice, his enlistment contract was amended to retroactively reflect that the ECLRP was offered as part of his enlistment and the Air Force subsequently paid $10,000 toward his outstanding loans.  Based on the sequence of events that he presented, it appears his original intent was to serve one period of service.  Declining the MGIB would be in the best interest for an individual who has elected the ECLRP and knows he only wants to serve one enlistment.  An individual that does not decline the MGIB and is an ECLRP participant would forfeit $1,200 if they do not enter a second enlistment.  Once he realized that he wanted to make a commitment to serve a second period of service, he became conscious that his original declination of $40,000 in MGIB benefits was a mistake and his only way to reverse the decision was to claim government error.  His 10 June 2004 letter points out that he was informed to get a statement saying the fault was with the BMT instructor.  He states he was told to get a package together with letters from the training instructor and recruiter saying it was their fault; however, he did not hear back from either of them.  There is no supporting documentation to support, suggest, or imply a government error.  Events in his life did change what would have allowed him to take advantage of the MGIB; however, he provides no evidence that would support his claim that his original decision to decline the MGIB was a government error.

The complete DPSIT evaluation is at Exhibit G.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 28 March 2008 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit H).

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  In earlier findings, the Board determined there was insufficient evidence to correct the applicant’s record to reflect he enrolled in the MGIB program.  After again reviewing this application and the evidence provided in support of his appeal, we find no evidence which would lead us to believe that his decision to decline to participate in the  MGIB program was based on incorrect information.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that he has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Accordingly, the Board finds no basis upon which to favorably consider the applicant’s request. 

2.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered BC-2004-02144 in Executive Session on 27 October 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit E.  Record of Proceedings, dated 5 January 2005, w/Exhibits.
	Exhibit F.  DD Form 149, dated 13 January 2008, w/atchs.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 15 April 2008, w/atchs.
	Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 April 2008.