RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00420
			INDEX CODE:		 128.11
			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  No

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  8 AUG 2006
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her records be corrected to show conversion from the Veterans Education Assistance Program (VEAP) to the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was not informed of the opportunity to convert from the Veterans Educational Assistance Program (VEAP) to the MGIB.  She never received counseling on the conversion process, there is no DD Form 2366 on file indicating that she made a choice regarding the conversion and her name was not on the list of VEAP contributors eligible for the conversion.

In support of his request, applicant provided AF Form 1548, Authorization to Start, Stop or Change an Allotment and a copy of a personal check made out to VEAP.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Air Force on 18 August 1982, and was progressively promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel.

On 1 March 2005, AFPC/DPPAT requested applicant provided evidence that supports an error or injustice in notification of her eligibility for the conversion from the VEAP to the MGIB.  They also informed her that not acknowledging the official VEAP/MGIB conversion opportunity announced on her LES statements and local advertised media is not a government error or injustice.

VEAP was enacted by Congress (38 USC, Chapter 32) to provide veterans’ education benefits for individuals entering active duty between 1 January 1977 and 30 June 1985.  The MGIB was enacted (38USC, Chapter 30) and became effective 1 July 1985.  VEAP was a voluntary program that offered a maximum $8,100 benefit to the participants.  To enroll and participate, officer and airmen were required to start an allotment or make a deposit.

The applicant’s records show she contributed the minimum $25.00 to establish VEAP benefits.

Congress opened two windows of opportunity for VEAP participants to convert their benefits to the more lucrative MGIB.  PL 99-576 allowed VEAP participants to convert to the MGIB.  The law required applicants make an election to convert benefits from 9 October 1996 through 8 October 1997.  Congress subsequently opened another conversion period in 2001.  Members were required to make an election between 1 November 2000 to 31 October 2001.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAT recommends denial. DPPAT states the Air Force advertised the opportunity to convert from VEAP to the MGIB at all bases starting shortly after 9 October 1996.  Publicity was included in the AF Times as well as flyers, emails, etc.  The Air Force satisfied the requirements of PL 99-576 and PL 106-419 by distributing information at commander’s calls, leave and earning statement (LES) announcements, base newspaper articles, and official bulletins.  The member received six LESs with dates ranging from 31 January 2001 to 30 September 2001, with statements specifically relating to the MGIB conversion.  

While the applicant claims that her mail was being forwarded to another address, it does not seem plausible since the LESs are delivered to the duty section.  It is also not plausible that this misdirection would occur for over a year.  In addition, bases conducted a media blitz using all possible means to notify individuals of the opportunity to convert.  The Travis AFB newspaper, Tailwind, provided a detailed article on the conversion and provided dates and places of briefings.  Applicant also appeared on the list of eligible sent to all education centers.

DPPAT states approval of the applicant’s request will violate 38 USC, Chapter 30, Section 3018C.  Time frames for conversion during either period were determined by public laws.  There was no error regarding the conversion window opportunity since the program was widely publicized throughout DoD.

The DPPAT evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states the aforementioned LESs sent as notification for conversion eligibility was sent to a PSC Box that was not her address.  She made several attempts to change this address but the change took almost a year.  This may be one of the reasons she did not receive notification of her eligibility for conversion of VEAP to the MGIB.

Her complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded the applicant should be enrolled in the MGIB program.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the office of primary responsibility.  We therefore agree with their recommendation and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice.  In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2005-00420 in Executive Session on 24 May 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	            Vice Chair
	            Member
	            Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Jan 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAT, dated 25 Mar 05, w/atch.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Apr 05.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, 7 Mar 05, w/atchs.

                                   
                                   Vice Chair