APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, the applicant requests educational benefits under the provisions of the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB). APPLICANT STATES: That he has not been able to obtain benefits under the MGIB because his former Reserve unit in California had him listed as an unsatisfactory participant, when in fact, he was in the New Mexico Army National Guard as a simultaneous membership program (SMP) cadet from October 1988 to May 1990. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: The applicant enlisted in the Army Reserve for 8 years on 29 October 1987. He enlisted for the student loan repayment program. The applicant was on active duty as an enlisted soldier from 28 June 1988 to 26 August 1988, when he was released to his Reserve unit in California. On 28 September 1988 the applicant amended his previous enlistment agreement and enlisted in the Army Reserve as a cadet for 8 years. The applicant was appointed a second lieutenant in the Army Reserve on 11 May 1990. The applicant was on active duty for training (ADT) from 3 June 1990 through 26 September 1990. He was released from ADT as a second lieutenant and transferred to the Army Reserve reinforcement control group. On 1 November 1991 the applicant was transferred from the Army Reserve annual training control group to the Texas ARNG. On 4 November 1991 the applicant agreed to serve six years in the selected Reserve of the Army National Guard or the Army Reserve, in addition to any current period of obligated selected reserve service, in order to enroll in the selected reserve educational assistance program (the new GI bill). On 30 October 1992 the TXARNG Adjutant General notified a member of congress that the applicant’s benefits under the MGIB were terminated on 7 July 1989 by the Army Reserve because of unsatisfactory participation. In a 20 April 1993 memorandum the applicant’s unit commander indicated that the applicant was a SMP with the 804th Maintenance Company going to school at New Mexico Military Institute from October 1988 through May 1990. A 21 March 1994 ARNG retirement points statement shows that the applicant served in the SMP from 29 October 1987 through 10 May 1990, and that he was a unit member in the ARNG until 15 March 1994. The applicant resigned from the Texas ARNG on 15 March 1994 under the provisions of National Guard Regulation 635-100, paragraph 5a(3) and was transferred to the Army Reserve reinforcement control group. A 20 November 1995 advisory opinion from an official of the office of the Chief of the Army Reserve indicates that the applicant enlisted in the Army Reserve on 29 October 1987 for the student loan repayment program, and after basic training, requested to be discharged from the Army Reserve upon his enlistment in the New Mexico ARNG as an ROTC SMP cadet. He enlisted in the ARNG on 28 September 1988. There was no record that the applicant was an unsatisfactory participant while assigned to the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard as an enlisted soldier. Upon his commission in the Texas ARNG he was coded ineligible. That official recommended that the ARNG correct the data base to reflect his eligibility for the MGIB. Informal information obtained from an official in the National Guard Bureau is that the applicant was not listed on either the National Guard or the Army Reserve data base as an unsatisfactory participant. Army Regulation 135-7, chapter 8, gives the policy and procedures governing the educational assistance program for members of the selected reserve (Montgomery GI Bill). Paragraph 8-8 of that regulation states, in effect, that a soldier’s entitlement to benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill will expire on the date he is separated or discharged from the selected reserve. Army Regulation 140-10 prescribes policies, responsibilities, and procedures concerning the assignment of Reserve soldiers. Chapter 2 states, in pertinent part, that the Ready Reserve consists of soldier assigned to troop program units (TPUs) and to Reserve control groups. The selected reserve is composed of soldiers assigned to TPUs, the individual mobilization augmentation (IMA) control group, and to the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) control group. Informal information obtained from an official in the Army Personnel Command at St. Louis is that a soldier may regain eligibility for educational assistance provided he reaffiliates with the selected reserve within one year. This information was confirmed by an official at the Office of the Chief of the Army Reserve, who stated that that rule was contained in DOD Instruction 1322.17. 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. There is no available evidence to indicate that the applicant was an unsatisfactory participant in either the Army Reserve or the Army National Guard. Nonetheless, he was not eligible for Montgomery GI Bill benefits because of his separation from the selected reserve (transfer to the reinforcement control group), in September 1990. 2. The applicant was erroneously enrolled in the Montgomery GI Bill when he transferred from an Army Reserve control group to the Texas Army National Guard in November 1971. He was not eligible for benefits because he did not rejoin the selected reserve within one year of his transfer. 3. 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. 4. 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 DENY APPLICATION Karl F. Schneider Acting Director