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

MEH
Docket No. 9111-07
17 Dec 07

Dear

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 17 December 2007. 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 memo 1780 PERS-352G of 26 Nov 07, a copy of which is attached.

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, a majority of 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 also 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—352G
26 Nov 07

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 Nov 07
		(b)	Title 38, United States Code, Chapter 32
		(c)	Veterans Improvement 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 12 October 1982 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.

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 who did not participate in VEAP.

c.	We recommend denial of request. The enclosed VAQ 209 letter 5400 N10/160 of 2 October 2007 states in part a thorough review of service record, a determination was made that he was never offered educational benefits (VEAP during initial recruit training”. A determination of whether or not a member was offered VEAP cannot be determined by review of their service record. For veterans and members like—$1f1 who entered during VEAP era, we would not expect to find a GI Bill program

For Official Use Only - Privacy Sensitive: Any misuse or unauthorized disclosure may result in both civil and criminal penalties

Subj: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ICC

document in their service record. This does not mean the individual was not afforded the opportunity to enroll in VEAP, but rather a matter of service record maintenance. It is extremely rare to find a Contributory Educational Assistance Program Statement of Understanding for VEAP (DD Form 2057) in a member’s service record. This is because throughout the years of a member’s career, usually prior to each reenlistment, the service record is reviewed and documents purged. While the DD Form 2057 should have been retained, historically, it was most often among the purged documents. Normally, if a VEAP-era member or veteran produces their DD Form 2057, it’s because they kept a copy in their own personal files. To determine if an individual is a VEAP participant, we check a Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) system for a Navy VEAP account. We can also check with the Department of Veterans Affairs for record of all VEAP accounts, regardless of branch of service. If the member didn’t elect to enroll in VEAP initially, they had a second opportunity during the VEAP open enrollment period. For individuals initially entering active duty after 30 June 1985, the DD Form 2366 is used for MGIB Program enrollment/disenrollment elections. It is distributed with the original being sent to the Navy Personnel Command for entry in the Electronic Military Personnel Records system, a copy to the member and a copy in the field service record (enlisted) . The DD Form 2366 is not normally purged from the service record.

d.	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 thousands of other Sailors who also didn’t participate and now have no education benefits.

2. PERS—352G’s point of contact is Ms. who can be reached at (DSN) 882—4259 or (C) 901—874—4259.

Head, GI Bill Programs Section
(PERS—352G)

2