2.  The applicant requests, in effect, that her separation date from active duty be extended in order to qualify for educational benefits which she contributed to while on active duty.  She states that had she known she was only days short of completing the required 30 months of active duty in order to qualify for her GI Bill benefits she would have requested a latter separation date by utilizing some of her 42 days of accrued leave.

3.  Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant entered active duty on 27 December 1985 for a period of 3 years.  Her enlistment contract contains a statement indicating that the Veteran’s Education Assistance Program and Army College Fund were no longer available to individuals entering active duty after 30 June 1985 but that she would “be eligible to enroll in a similar program” and would “be informed of the benefits and requirements of the new program in more detail” before she entered active duty. There is no further evidence, other than the fact that she did contribute to the newly implemented Montgomery GI Bill, that she ever received any additional counseling concerning eligibility and utilization of those benefits.

4.  On 22 June 1988 the applicant was voluntarily released from active duty to enter an ROTC program at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.  At the time of the applicant’s separation she had 42 days of accrued leave and had completed 2 years, 5 months, and 26 days of creditable service; 4 days short of 30 months.

5.  Chapter 30, Title 38 of the US Code established eligibility requirement for participation in the Veterans' Educational Assistance Act of 1984 (New GI Bill).  It provided that individuals who entered an initial period of active duty on or after 1 July 1985 would be automatically enrolled in the program unless they opted to disenroll within a specific time frame established by the individual services.  Once enrolled in the New GI Bill the individual's basic pay was reduced $100.00 per month for each of the 



first full 12 months of active duty and could not be refunded, suspended or stopped.  An honorable discharge is required for receipt of entitlements, which amounted to $300.00 per month for 36 months, for individuals who completed at least 3 years of active duty.  To meet eligibility requirements the applicant would have needed to remain on active duty until 26 June 1988.

6.  Telephonic information received from the Education Incentives Branch at the Total Army Personnel Command revealed that individuals voluntarily separated from active duty to participate in an approved ROTC program were considered to have been released from active duty for the convenience of the government and required to complete on 30 months of their 36 month enlistment contract in order to be eligible for education benefits.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was voluntarily separated from active duty for the convenience of the government to participate in an approved ROTC program.  However, there is no indication that she was ever counseled concerning the requirement to remain on active for a period of 30 months in order to obtain educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill.

2.  It is reasonable to presume that had the applicant been properly counseled she would have requested a separation date that would have enable her to complete the required 30 months of active service.

3.  In view of the circumstances in this case, and in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to extend the applicant’s service by 4 days, until 26 June 1988, in order to meet eligibility requirements for the Montgomery GI Bill.

4.  In view of the foregoing, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.



RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected:

	a.  by showing that the action separating the individual concerned from active duty on 22 June 1988 is void and of no force or effect; and

	b.  by showing that she was separated from active duty on 26 June 1988.

BOARD VOTE:  

                       GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




		                           
		        CHAIRPERSON