RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00268
		INDEX NUMBER:  128.00
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  No

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  20 Jul 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to allow him the opportunity to make final payments into the Veterans Education Assistance Program (VEAP) and the payments be reflected as received prior to the 18 month deadline of 28 Feb 03 so he may qualify for VEAP benefits.

In the alternative, applicant requests the amount of $2250.00 he has contributed to the VEAP be refunded.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was miscounseled during a visit to the Finance Office at Nellis Air Force Base in Nov 03 regarding payment of his remaining payments in the VEAP.  He owed an additional $450.00 to reach the required contribution of $2700.00.  An airman in the Finance office told him he could make the payments directly to the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).  When he contacted the DVA, he was advised he was not eligible for VEAP benefits.

In support of his appeal, applicant provides a copy of a decision letter from the DVA and copies of e-mails documenting his efforts to get VEAP benefits or a refund of the money he has already paid toward VEAP benefits.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant served on active duty in the Air Force from 8 Apr 82 to 31 Oct 02 and retired effective 1 Nov 02 in the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt).
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAT recommends denial of the applicant’s request.

The VEAP was enacted by Congress to provide education benefits for individuals entering active duty between 1 Jan 77 and 30 Jun 85.  The Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) was enacted and became effective 1 Jul 85.  VEAP was a voluntary program that offered a maximum $8100.00 benefit to participants and unused contributions could be refunded.  Congress opened two windows of opportunity for VEAP participants to convert their benefits to the more lucrative MGIB.  The first open window from 1996-1997 allowed those VEAP participants with an open account to convert while the second window of opportunity in 2001 allowed those with both open and closed accounts to convert.  The VEAP/MGIB conversion required those electing conversion to pay $2700.00 within 18 months of election.  The law further states an election to convert from VEAP to MGIB is a disenrollment from the VEAP.  Applicants were required to complete a DD Form 2366, MGIB Act of 1984, upon acceptance of the conversion.  Those that did not pay the $2700.00 within the 18-month period would be ineligible for a refund of any contributions made.

The applicant contends he never converted from VEAP to the MGIB.  However, his record contains a DD Form 2366, MGIB Act of 1984, electing conversion from the VEAP to MGIB, dated 28 Aug 01.  Additionally, the DD Form 2366 was initialed in section 3, “Service Unique Education Assistance Option,” which states the requirements for conversion from VEAP to MGIB including the requirement to pay $2700.00 no later than 18 months from the date of the form, 28 Feb 03.  The applicant paid $2250.00 toward the required $2700.00.  His active duty allotment stopped 31 Sep 02 due to his retirement.  There is no evidence he attempted to pay the remaining $450.00 before the due date.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 25 Feb 05 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, the majority of the Board agrees with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopts its rationale as the basis for their conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the majority of the Board finds no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2005-00268 in Executive Session on 31 March 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member

By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny applicant’s request.  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX voted to grant the applicant’s requests but did not desire to submit a minority report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Jan 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPAT, dated 23 Feb 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Feb 05.

 
                                   Panel Chair

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                                  FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

	I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that the application be denied.

	Please advise the applicant accordingly.

							XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
							Director
							Air Force Review Boards Agency