DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~51OO

SRB
Docket No. 9043-05
10 May 06

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 May 2006. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by NPC memorandum 1780 Pers 675 of 27 February 2006, a copy of which is attached.

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material evidence or other matter not previouslyconsidered by the Board. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	Sincerely,		
	
	W. DEAN PFIEFFER
	Executive Director

Enclosure

	
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000

1780
PERS-675
27 Feb 06

MEMOPANDUN FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

Via: Assistant for BCNR Matters (PERS-31C)

Subj: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ICO
	
Ref:   (a)  CNPC memo 5420 PERS-31C of 21 Feb 06
          (b)  Title 38, United taLes Code, Chapter 32
          (c)  Veterans Irnprovernentr Act of 1996 (PL 104-275)
          (d)  Veterans Benefits and Health Care Improvement Act of
                 2000 (PL 106-419)

1.	The following is provided in response to reference (a)

a.  Per reference (b), the Veterans Educational Assistance Program (VEAP) was available to members who entered the military for the first time between 1 January 1977 and 30 June 1985. It was closed to new enrollments on 30 June 1985, but reopened for five months from 28 October 1986 to 31 March 1987. Notification of the open period and final closure of VEAP was given the widest dissemination. Only those members who elected to enroll in VEAP and had their disbursing office start an allotment to a VEAP account are considered participants. A review of record indicates he initially entered active duty (other than for training) on 3 January 1985. records further indicate he did not participate in VEAP before 1 July 1985, or by the end of the VEAP open period, 31 March 1987. Since these were legislated deadlines, should not be allowed to participate now.

b. Reference (c) offered the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) Program enrollment to active duty members with money in a VEAP account on 9 October 1996 (date of enactment). Per reference (d), an individual who was a VEAP participant on or before 9 October 1996 and served continuously from that date through at least 1 April 2000 was allowed an opportunity to convert from VEAP to the MGIB Program. Unfortunately, no provisions were made in references (c) or (d) for members like AMEC who did not participate in VEAP.

c. We recommend denial of AMEC        request.    indicates he didn’t receive proper counseling on VEAP. We note this counseling was to have taken place over 20 years ago and he has submitted no evidence that he tried to remedy the miscouseling in 

Subj:  REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ICO
;
the interim years. If members declined initially, they still had a second opportunity during the VEAP open enrollment period. VEAP was never a very popular program, and it is only now when members/veterans are nearing retirement or considering further education that they are requesting enrollment in VEAP with conversion to the more beneficial MGIB Program. Although we believe all who have served on active duty deserve quality education benefits, allowing those who didn’t participate in VEAP before the legislated deadlines to enroll now, with or without subsequent enrollment in the MGIB Program, would create an inequity to the thousand~ of othe Sailo s who also didnt particip tze and now have no education b nefits.

2.    PERS-675G’s point of contact is           who can be reached at (DSN) 882-4258 or (C) 901-874-4258.

                                                                                                          Head, GI Bl Programs Section (PERS-675G)

2