PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:            16 March 2000                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR1999029631

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Walter Avery, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson	
	Mr. Orville W. Troesch, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests in effect, that his records be corrected to reflect entitlement to the Army College Fund (ACF).

3.  The applicant states in effect, that he believed he would receive educational benefits under the ACF and the G.I. Bill but found out after he separated from active duty that his records did not reflect entitlement to the ACF.  He states that he initially enlisted and discussed the ACF with his recruiter who explained the criteria to him, which he has met or exceeded.  He understood the criteria to be a score of 50 points or higher on the Armed Force Qualification Test, have a qualifying skill, successfully graduate from high school, stay in the Army for four years and enroll in the Montgomery GI Bill.  It was only after he separated and tried to use the ACF that he discovered that the line on his enlistment document that would have indicated his acceptance of the ACF option is blank and the annotation “NA” is handwritten.  He concludes his application by saying “I wanted the ACF and I thought that I was enrolled in it up until now . . .  I feel that this was a human error . . .  I also accept any responsibility that I have in this since I did sigh the contract that was messed up.  I served my country for almost ten years and got out with an Honorable Discharge.  I have a clean record in the Army and was a good soldier. . .”

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he entered service 15 June 1989; completed military occupational skill training; and separated honorably on         28 February 1999.  His record shows that he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal (2nd Award), Army Good Conduct Medal (3rd Award), National Defense Service Medal, Southeast Asia Service Medal with 1 Bronze Service Star, Humanitarian Service Medal, Noncommissioned Officer’s Professional Development Ribbon with numeral 2, and Overseas Service Ribbon (2nd award).

5.  Army Regulation 601-210 prescribes the policies and procedures for enlistment in the Army Reserve and Regular Army.  It states that the Army College Fund is one of three monetary enlistment incentives available to candidates who meet specific eligibility requirements.  The Army College Fund provides additional education funds above and beyond that earned under the GI Bill.  The money earned is deposited in the soldier’s VA account and dispersed to the participant in 36 equal monthly installments while the person is enrolled in an approved program of education.  To be eligible for the Army College Fund enlistment incentive an individual must be a high school graduate, achieve an AFQT score of 50, meet all prerequisites, and choose a MOS authorized an enlistment incentive option.  (Note:  Telephonic confirmation was received from the Education Branch at the Total Army Personnel Command that MOS 72C was one of the enlistment specialties associated with the Army College Fund at the time of the applicant’s enlistment and confirmed the applicant had been enrolled in the MGIB)  Soldiers enlisted under the Army College Fund incentive complete a DA Form 3286-66-60/6 (Statement for Enlistment US Army Enlistment Options) as part of their enlistment processing. 

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  It is the responsibility of the professionals involved in the enlistment of citizens (morally and or legally) to make them aware of all their entitlements and benefits they are eligible for.  The omission of the applicant’s initials on the form requesting the ACF could have been an accident or the ACF would not have been presented as an option.  Once an enlistee chooses the MGIB, the ACF brings no additional obligations such as additional service, therefore it is illogical that an enlistee would not choose the ACF.  The handwritten “NA” does not indicate if he ACF was explained or if the recruiter decided not to explain it; nor is it evidence that the applicant ever saw the page after it was annotated.  In light of the evidence that the applicant met or exceeded the criteria for the ACF, that there is no logical reason he would not have chosen it, and his almost ten years of honorable service presents sufficient reason to approve his request.

2.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by amending his DA Form 3286-60/6, Statement for Enlistment US Army Enlistment Options and any related form to indicate his acceptance of the US Army College Fund option.

BOARD VOTE:  

_jlp_____  _owt ____  __cjp ___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		________Jennifer L. Prater     _____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999029631	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000316	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	128	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.