APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That she be given the Army College Fund (ACF) enlistment option.

APPLICANT STATES:  That she was told by her recruiter that she was qualified for the ACF and that it would be entered into her enlistment contract.  Her military occupational specialty (MOS) of 76Y (unit supply specialist) qualified for the ACF as did her Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) score.  She did not learn that the ACF had not been included in her enlistment contract until after she was separated from active duty, went to college and attempted to use the ACF.

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

She enlisted in the Army Delayed Entry Program on 30 May 1987 and in the Regular Army on 10 November 1987.  At the time of her enlistment in the Regular Army, she executed a DA Form 3286, U.S. Army Enlistment Option, in which she elected the 2-year enlistment and the training of choice enlistment options.  The space provided for an enlistee to elect the ACF had been left blank.

She entered on active duty on 10 November 1987, was awarded MOS 76Y (which was later reclassified to MOS 92Y), served continuously through reenlistments, and was promoted to pay grade E-5.  She was honorably discharged on 31 May 1995 by reason of parenthood.  She had completed a total of 7 years, 6 months and 21 days of active duty.

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.

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.

In the processing of this case the staff of the Board found it necessary to contact the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) for additional information.  The PERSCOM stated that the ACF was available for MOS 76Y in May 1987 (the month the applicant enlisted in the DEP), but not in November 1987 (the month the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army).  The PERSCOM stated that while potential enlistees will normally express interests in enlistment options when they enlist in the DEP, they cannot actually enlist for those options until they enlist in the Regular Army.  This is in part necessary because the potential enlistees have not as yet completed military entrance tests (such as AFQT) so their eligibility for specific enlistment options cannot be ascertained until after their enlistment in the DEP.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant’s MOS was not on the list of the skills approved for the ACF at the time of her enlistment in the Regular Army.  As such, she could not have been offered that enlistment incentive at that time.

2.  While the applicant may have expressed an interest in the ACF when she enlisted in the DEP, she could not enlist for that option at that time.

3.  She has not shown that any promises were made to her beyond those stated in her enlistment contract.  To the contrary, her enlistment contract clearly shows that she only enlisted for the 2-year enlistment and the training of choice enlistment options.

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