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

SRB
Docket No. 759-06
10 May 06

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

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

W.	DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

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 23 Feb 06
	(b)	Title 38, United States Code,  Chapter 32
	(c)	Veterans Improvement Act of 1996 (PL I04-275)
	(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 widest dissemination.

b.	DD Form 2057 was used to document member’s decision whether or not to voluntarily participate in VEAP. Members who chose to participate, indicated a monthly amount they would contribute to VEAP. However, to become a participant, the member had to have their disbursing office start an allotment to fund a VEAP account. Only those members who elected to enroll in VEAP and had their disbursing office start an allotment to a VEAP account are considered participants.

c.	Reference (c) offered 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 Mt4C~hI~who did not participate in VEAP.

Subj:    REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ICO

d.	We recommend denial of states recruits did not have access to Disbursing in their first week of training. He had from the time he completed the DD Form 2057 until Congress closed VEAP to new enrollments for the last time on 31 March 1987 to start an allotment and become a participant. A review of s record indicates he did not participate in VEAP before 1 u y 1985, or by the end of the VEAP open period, 31 March 1987. Since these were legislated deadlines, xxxxx  should not be allowed to participate now. Additionally, since ~was not a VEAP participant, he was not eligible for conversion to the MGIB Program. Counseling on VEAP initially or during the open enrollment period, including allotment procedures, would have occurred about 20 years ago. We note has submitted no evidence that he tried to remedy this situation in the interim, must have noticed over time that no money was being deducted from his pay for VEAP. VEAP was never a very popular program, and it is only now when members/veterans are retiring 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 thousands of other Sailors who also didn’t participate and now have no education benefits.

2.	PERS—675G’s point of contact is ET1(SS) who can he reached at (DSN) 882-4262 or (C)

2
Head, GI Bill Programs Section (PERS-675G)