MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            9 March 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999029845

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

	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas D. Howard, Jr.		Member	
	Ms. Carol Jo Suiter		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That he be enrolled in the Army College Fund (ACF) retroactive to the date of his initial enlistment.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was led to believe by his recruiter at the time that he was being enrolled in the ACF and contends that he filled out the necessary forms to do so; however, they are missing from his records and he cannot locate a copy of said forms.  He further states that although his enlistment contract has his initial under the “No” block for the ACF, he is sure that it was an honest mistake made by the recruiter at the time because he was very busy.  He continues by stating that he was led to believe that he would receive the ACF as his incentive for joining the Army because he inquired as to whether he would receive a bonus and was told that he would be receiving the ACF instead.  He also states that it is his intention to attend college after separating from the service and he believes that he has earned the entitlement that he is seeking.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

The applicant enlisted in the USAR on 15 June 1995 in Denver, Colorado under the delayed entry program.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 October 1995 for a period of 4 years, training as a combat engineer and select station of choice.  He also indicated by his initials at the time on a DA Form 3286-66, that he understood that he was enlisting for the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) education incentive and that he was not enlisting for the ACF or Loan Repayment Program (LRP).  In addition, he further indicated that no other promises had been made that were not annotated on his contract.

The applicant completed his training as a combat engineer and was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 1 April 1999.  He remained on active duty until 19 September 1999 when he was honorably released from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17, for the purpose of attending school.  He had served 3 years, 9 months, and 25 days of total active service. 

In the processing of this case a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) Education Incentives Branch.  Officials at that agency opined that election for entry into the ACF Program is made at the time of enlistment through the completion of the DA Form 3286-66 and the applicant’s DA Form 3286-66 clearly indicates that he elected the MGIB at the time of enlistment.  Additionally, his contract is coded as a “Non-College Fund” enlistment and the ACF was only authorized for his military occupational specialty under the ACF Plus Program which was a test program for soldiers entering active duty for a 2-year term of service only.

The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for comment and no response has been received by the Board as of this date.
DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board but are not supported by the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board must presume that the applicant read and understood what he was signing at the time and that what the Department did at the time was in accordance with applicable regulations.

3.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___cs___  ___jh____  ___tdh__  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999029845	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/03/09	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  1018 	103.0100/EDUC BENEFITS	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.