•	   DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
	BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
	            2 NAVY ANNEX
	      WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

SRB
Docket No. 383-06
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 28 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 previously considered 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,

Enclosure

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

			1780
					PERS- 675 28 Feb 06

MEMORANDuM 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)	Veterans Benefits and Health Care Improvement Act of
			2000 (PL 106—419)
                        (c)	CNO WASHINGTON DC 031700z May Ol(NAVADMIN 105/01)                                                                                                                               
                        (d)  	Title 38, United States Code, Chapter 32

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

a.	Per reference (b), an individual who was a Veterans Educational Assistance Program (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 Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) Program. Opportunity for eligible personnel to convert ended 31 October 2001.

b.	Following enactment of reference (b) , interpretation by General Counsel of the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) and meetings with personnel from DVA and the Department of Defense, Navy attempted widest dissemination of the opportunity for eligible personnel to convert to the MGIB Program. This included reference (c), notification on all Leave and Earnings Statements from January through May 2001 with final notice in September 2001 and individual letters to active duty members and retirees.

c.	On 5 April 2001, notification letters were mailed to eligible active duty members using the Unit Identification Code on record at that time with the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC). At the same time, notification letters were sent to eligible retirees. In some cases, although a member had recently retired, the DMDC record still reflected them as being on active duty. This is apparently what happened in

Subj:	REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ICO

case since he retired on 31 August 2000, but the listing we received from DMDC reflected he was still on active duty so his notification letter was sent to him using the address of his last duty station. We had other cases of personnel like who were retired and didn’t receive their notification letter, but they contacted us about eligibility for the conversion opportunity. Once their eligibility was verified, they were allowed to enroll in the MGIB Program.

d.	We do not recommen approval of request. It’s unfortunate id not receive his notification letter or read or hear of the opportunity from other sources.
intended to pursue further education and was notr aware of the conversion opportunity, as a VEAP participant, seemingly he would have recontributed money to his VEAP account as permitted by reference (d) for future educational benefits.
VEAP account record reflects no contributions after a refund of $625 on 21 September 1987. Navy attempted widest dissemination of the information on the conversion opportunity. While we acknowledge wouldn’t have received his notification letter, we do not believe that failure to be notified of the opportunity by the service organization justifies the right to convert from VEAP to the MGIB Program after the legislated deadline. There is no provision in reference (b) allowing those who were unaware of the conversion opportunity to enroll in the MGIB Program after 31 October 2001.

2.	PERS-675G’s point of contact is PSC who can be reached at (DSN) 882-4259 or (C) 901-874-4259.

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

2