2. The applicant requests that his records be corrected to show that he enlisted for the Army College Fund (ACF). 3. He states that he enlisted in the Army with the intent to earn money to enroll in college for a degree in electrical engineering. He had also hoped to learn a skill related to the field of electrical engineering. Towards that purpose, he elected the 2-year enlistment option, the training of choice option for combat signaler, and the ACF.  However, when he went to take his entrance physical examination and sign his contract, the physician determined that he had contracted bronchitis, a medically disqualifying condition. That finding resulted in his contract in the Army Delayed Entry Program (DEP) being voided. On the same day of that examination, he was allowed to sign a second DEP contract. He was told at that time by his recruiter that the military occupational specialty (MOS) of combat signaler was closed, and the MOS of electronic warfare/intercept strategic receiving subsystems repairer was recommended, but he would have to enlist for 6 years to be trained in that MOS. He consented to the change in training and the term of service, but asked for assurance that his new contract would still give him the ACF. His recruiter told him emphatically that he would receive the ACF. 4. In support of his application he submits a memorandum from a military legal assistance attorney who reiterates the applicant’s contentions. 5. The applicant’s military records show he enlisted in the DEP on 15 June 1990. At that time, he executed a DA Form 3286, U.S. Army Enlistment Option, U.S. Army Delayed Entry Program, in which he elected the 2-year term of service, the training of choice and the ACF enlistment options. 6. On 17 October 1990 he took his entry physical examination and was found to be taking antibiotics for bronchitis. He was temporarily disqualified for enlistment and was required to renegotiate his DEP enlistment contract.  In conjunction with that renegotiation, he executed a new DA Form 3286, in which he elected only the training of choice option for the electronic warfare/intercept strategic receiving subsystem repairer MOS, with a 6-year term of service. That renegotiation did not include the ACF enlistment option. 7. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 November 1990 and was serving on active duty in pay grade E-4 on the date he submitted his application to the Board. 8. The Montgomery G.I. Bill (MGIB), as outlined in title 38, United States Code, chapter 30, section l411(b), provides for soldiers who entered the service after 30 June l985 to be automatically enrolled into the MGIB, unless declined, and to contribute $l,200.00 during their first l2 months service, which is nonrefundable. 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. 9. The ACF is an incentive program which is available to certain Regular Army enlistees who participate in the MGIB.  In addition to the monthly monetary educational benefits given to soldiers who participate in the MGIB, the Army also provides a “kicker” in the form of the ACF, which is a set amount of money which is determined by the length of an enlistment. To be eligible for the ACF, the soldier must be a high school graduate, have an AFQT score of 50 or above, remain enrolled in the MGIB, and enlist for certain military occupational specialties, as determined by the Department of the Army. 10. In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM). The PERSCOM stated that the ACF was not available for the MOS of electronic warfare/intercept strategic receiving subsystem repairer. The PERSCOM also points out that the applicant’s renegotiated contract clearly shows that he only enlisted for MOS training and that the option shown on his renegotiated contract constituted all promises made to him and that all other options were waived. The PERSCOM recommends disapproval of the applicant’s request. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant was not eligible for the ACF when he changed his MOS. 2. Although he initially enlisted for the ACF, his renegotiated enlistment contract clearly shows that the ACF had been deleted. 3. Nonetheless, it was clearly the intent of the applicant to enlist for the ACF. This seems particularly true, and otherwise incomprehensible, that he would willingly agree to increase his term of active service from 2 years with the ACF to 6 years without the ACF, if his goal was to obtain the maximum educational benefits available which were offered by the ACF. 4. The Board surmises that the recruiter may not have clearly explained to him that he would lose the ACF if he accepted the new MOS or that the recruiter may have misled him into believing, without written assurance, that he would in fact receive the ACF with his new MOS. 5. In view of the foregoing, any benefit of the doubt should go to the applicant and in the interest of justice, his records should be corrected as recommended below. RECOMMENDATION: That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 November 1990 with the ACF enlistment option, as an exception to policy. BOARD VOTE: GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION GRANT FORMAL HEARING DENY APPLICATION CHAIRPERSON