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

MEH
Docket No. 488-07
1 May 07

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 1 May 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 Ser 352G/254 of 20 Feb 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, and your request for a personal appearance before the Board, 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
Ser 352G/254
20 Feb 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-3lC of 15 Feb 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 CDR  record indicates he initially entered active duty (other than for training) on 1 July 1979. 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, CDR 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 4Uinu~ who did not participate in VEAP.

c.	We recommend denial of CDR 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 situation in the interim years. VEAP was never a very popular program, and it is only now when members/veterans are nearing retirement or considering

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 IC

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.