Last saved by: terry.bynum

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

MEH
Docket No. 10208-06
17 Apr 07

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552.

A three-member panel of the Board for correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 April 07. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by NPC memo 1780 Pers 352G of 10 Jan 07, a copy of which is attached.

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, a majority of the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board. In this regard, it is also important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

Sincerely,

	W. DEAN PFEIFFER
	Executive Director

Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000

1780
PERS-352G
10 Jan 07

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

Via:	Assistant for BCNR Matters (PERS-31C)

Subj:	REQUEST FOR CONMENTS AND RECOIvII4ENDATIONS ICO CDR CDR, USN(RET), 

Ref:	(a)	CNPC memo 5420 PERS-31C of 28 Dec 06
	(b)	Veterans Benefits and Health Care Improvement Act of
		2000 (PL 106—419)
	(c)	CNO WASHINGTON DC 031700Z May 01(NAVADMIN 105/01)
	(d)	Title 38, United States Code, Chapter 32

1.	The following is provided in response to reference (a)

a.	Per reference (b), an individual who was a Veterans Educational Assistance Program (VEAP) participant (had a VEAP account) on or before 9 October 1996, and served continuously from that date through at least 1 April 2000 was allowed an opportunity to convert from VEAP to the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) Program. Opportunity for eligible personnel to convert ended 31 October 2001.

b.	Following enactment of reference (b), Navy attempted widest dissemination of the opportunity for eligible personnel to convert to the MGIB Program. This included NAVADMIN 105/01 (reference (c)), notification on all Leave and Earnings Statements from January through May 2001 with final notice in September 2001 and individual letters.

c. Recommend denial of CDR ‘  request to enroll in the MGIB Program as a conversion from VEAP, since he was not eligible to do so. Documents enclosed with CDR  petition include two letters believed to be of significant importance in this case.

(1) BCNR ltr JLP:kms Docket No: 4487-92 of 9 June 1992 reflects that then LT	record be corrected, where

For Official Use Only - Privacy Sens tive: Any misuse or unauthorized disclosure may result in both civil and criminal penalties
appropriate, to show that he elected to participate in VEAP on 30 March 1987, one day prior to the expiration of the open period.

(2)	DFAS Cleveland ltr DFAS-CL/(JJCS) Docket no 4487-92 of 14 August 1992 requested that , in accordance with the BCNR decision, submit a check to them made payable to the U.S. Treasury Department in the amount of $2,700 for deposit in VEAP. He was advised to include his social security number on the check and copies of the BCNR and DFAS letters to ensure proper handling of all monies and documents.

Review of the DFAS system that contains record of VEAP accounts of Naval personnel  1999, revealed no record of VEAP contributions b’	Additionally, the Department of Veterans ,  maintains VEAP accounts and processes VEAP claims, confirmed he has “no VEAP banking record.” It appears CDR  not send the payment to DFAS for contribution to a VEAP account as directed in 1992. Therefore, he is not eligible for VEAP~ benefits per reference (d), nor would CD have been considered eligible for conversion to the MGIB Program. This also explains why   CDR was not notified of the conversion opportunity. Even a.	CDR	had been eligible, by federal law, the deadline to convert was 31 October 2001. There is no provision in the law allowing conversions after the legislated deadline for any reason including lack of counseling or notification. CDR ‘ DD Form 149 reflects the date of discovery of the allege error or injustice was 31 October 2001, but there is no evidence that he tried to remedy this matter in the interim five years.

2.	I can be reached at (DSN)

 (PERS-352G)

2