DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5 100

MEH
Docket No. 10578-07
22 Jan 08

	  Dear

This is in reference to your application for correction of your nava1 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 22 January 2008. 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 10 Jan 08, 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 Opifliofl. 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.

								

									W. DEAN PFEIFFER
									Executive Director

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OFTHE NAVY
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITY DR$VE
					   MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000

1780
PERS-352G
10 Jan 08

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

Via:	Assistant for BCNR Matters (PERS-3lC)

Subj:	REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ICO
	
	Ref:	(a)	CNPC memo 5420 PERS-3lc of 9 Jan 08
		(b)	Title 38, United States Code, Chapter 30

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

a.	Per reference (b), members who initially enter active duty after 30 June 1985, are automatically enrolled in the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) Program unless they decline enrollment in writing using the DD Form 2366. Members make their election to remain enrolled or decline enrollment in the MGIB Program within the first two weeks of entering active duty. When a member disenrolls from the MGIB Program, an electronic entry occurs to prevent automatic pay deductions of $100 per month for 12 months. As with any electronic system, it is possible for an entry to fail and pay deductions start. In the same manner, there are instances where the system does not allow pay deductions to occur for a member who elects to remain enrolled in the MGIB Program. Unless a member brings the MGIB pay problem to the attention of their military pay office, it will go unresolved, either deducting money when the member declined MGIB enrollment or not deducting money when they elected MGIB enrollment.

b.	Review of  digital service record reveals he entered active duty on 25 January 1995. He elected to disenroll from the MGIB Program on 26 January 1995. election was properly documented on a DD Form 2366. He signed the Statement of Understanding and the Statement of Disenrollment acknowledging he understood he was eligible to enroll, but he did not desire to participate and would not be able to enroll at a later date. Per reference (b), the decision to disenroll from the MGIB program is irrevocable.

c.	We recommend denial of request to change his record to reflect enrollment in the MGIB Program.  states he was “counseled incorrectly” nearly 13 years ago, but apparently has taken no action to remedy the situation until now.    declination was appropriately documented, but when pay deductions started for MGIB Program enrollment, he apparently did not advise his disbursing office or the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) . This situation could have been remedied immediately, but instead a total of $1,200 was deducted from his pay from 1 February 1995 through 31 January 1996. We support ~ receiving a refund of his $1,200; however, we do not believe he is entitled to MGIB Program enrollment.

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

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