MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            11 February 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031117

	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. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. George D. Paxson		Member	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern		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 she, currently a lieutenant colonel on active duty, be allowed to enroll in the Veterans Educational Assistance Program (VEAP) or the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB).

APPLICANT STATES:  She was told when she enlisted in June 1977 that she was not eligible for the VEAP since the VEAP didn’t pay for graduate degree programs and she had already been awarded a bachelors degree.  In addition, she was never told when she was commissioned that she was eligible for the VEAP.  While she admits she probably would have been told that she was eligible for the VEAP and the VEAP can be used for graduate degrees if she had subsequently asked, there was no reason to ask since she had already received an answer to her question.  The applicant states that she is planning to retire in June 2000.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records did not contain her service computation documents.

The VEAP was established and implemented on l January l977, as a contributory education program designed to replace the Vietnam era (pre-l977) GI bill.  Any soldier entering the service between l January l977 and 30 June l985 was eligible to participate in the program.  The soldier was required to contribute between $50.00 and $75.00 (later increased to $l00.00) for a minimum of l2 months during his or her period of service.  The Army matched $2.00 for each $l.00 contributed by the soldier.  The maximum educational assistance that could be received by the soldier was $8,l00.00 for a 3-year enlistment, $7,200.00 for a 2-year enlistment.  Service must have been under honorable conditions.  The benefits aspects of the program are operated by the VA after the soldier is released from active duty.  The soldier’s participation in the program was evidenced by a “yes” or “no” entry on the DD Form 2l4, in item l5.

The MGIB, as outlined in title 38, United States Code, chapter 30, section 3011, provides for soldiers who entered the service after 30 June l985, to be automatically enrolled into the MGIB and to contribute $l,200.00 during their first l2 months service, which is not normally refundable.  After completion of their service obligation, he or she is entitled to receive up to $300.00 per month educational benefits for 36 months.  The program is administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).  Section 3002 of this title specifies that the term “educational institution” under chapter 30 will be those schools specified in section 3452 of this title.  Section 3452 defines an “educational institution” as any public or private “. . . college, normal school, professional school, university, or scientific or technical institution, or other institution furnishing education for adults.”

In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM).  The PERSCOM stated that participation in the VEAP was strictly voluntary and that open seasons for soldiers to enroll who had not previously done so earlier was provided from October 1986 through March 1987.  The PERSCOM recommends disapproval of the applicant’s request.  The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion and did not provide the Board with any further evidence or argument.

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, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant was eligible for the VEAP when she enlisted in 1977 and the VEAP could be used for graduate degrees.  However, she did not participate in that program and it is now too late for her to do so.

2.  The applicant has not submitted any evidence to support her argument that she was misinformed about the applicability of the VEAP for graduate programs.  However, even if that did in fact occur, it would appear reasonable that in a 23 year military career the applicant, an officer, would have heard other officers talk about their participation in the VEAP and would make inquiries concerning the applicability of the VEAP.  By her own admission, she did not make any such inquires.  In addition, the PERSCOM advertised the VEAP open season extensively.  Again, the applicant did not make any inquires at that time.

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

__mkp___  _gdp ___  _tbr_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031117	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	1999031117	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	128.05	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.