RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-00301
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. He be eligible for benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill Educational
Assistance Program.
2. He be provided the name of the individual that forged his signature
on the DD Form 2384, Selected Reserve Educational Assistance Program (GI
Bill) Notice of Basic Eligibility.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was not informed or briefed on the DD Form 2384 and never signed the
form. He is left-handed and the signature on the form is not his.
The applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the
applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the
appropriate office of the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to
recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Personnel Operations Branch, ANG/DPPU, reviewed the application
and states that in accordance with ANGI 36-2607, paragraph 5.1, once a
member signs a six-year commitment, he or she at that point have ten years
to use the benefits of the Montgomery GI Bill Educational Assistance
Program. After ten years, the eligibility for the bill automatically
expires. Since the applicant enlisted on 4 December 1986, he
benefits/eligibility for the Montgomery GI Bill Educational Assistance
Program expired on 3 December 1996. Therefore, they recommend the
application be denied.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 21 April 2000, for review and response within 30 days. However, as of
this date, no response has been received by this office.
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest
of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice. In this respect, we note that in
accordance with ANGI 36-2607, paragraph 5.1, the applicant signed his six-
year commitment, he had ten years to use the benefits of the Montgomery GI
Bill Educational Assistance Program. We find no evidence that during this
period the applicant ever questioned the validity of the DD Form 2384,
Selected Reserve Educational Assistance Program (GI Bill) Notice of Basic
Eligibility. The applicant has waited over 13 years after he signed the
contested document and has not provided any explanation for doing so. In
addition, there is no evidence that he ever attempted to obtain benefits
during the contested period. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable consideration
of this request.
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the application
was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will
only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant
evidence not considered with this application.
The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on 28 June 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, III, Member
Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Feb 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ANG/DPPU, dated 29 Mar 00.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR dated 21 Apr 00.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00702
Documentation of this interview will serve as a record of the member's intent to reenlist at ETS as well as the unit commander's selection for reenlistment. DPFOC notes the commander did not recommend the applicant for reenlistment. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01006
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01006 INDEX CODE: 128.11 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 5 OCTOBER 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to show he elected to participate in the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB). The law stipulates all MGIB eligible individuals are automatically enrolled in the MGIB...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03302 INDEX CODE: 135.00 COUNSEL: ROBERT T. SUMMA HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated to the Missouri Air National Guard (MO ANG) in the grade of major, with a retroactive promotion date of May 1997; or in the alternative, his name be placed on the retired Reserve list, with a credit of six...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00113
Based on all the facts presented by the applicant, DPPAES believes she was well aware at her time of entry into active duty that she was not eligible to be enrolled into the MGIB. After reviewing the evidence of record, we do believe the applicant has been the victim of an injustice. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Personnel Operations Branch, ANG/DPFO, reviewed the additional information submitted and indicated that they are unable to administratively correct the applicant’s military records. The applicant has produced a number of supportive statements from high-level ANG and Air Force officers who support his request. Exhibit G. Letter, ANG/DPFO, dated 4 Aug 00.
_________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that provided he reimburses the United States Air Force for his Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) Spring 2000 Semester college tuition, he declined his AFROTC Scholarship for the Spring 2000 semester at the University of Iowa. Exhibit E. Applicant's response, dated 18 Sep 00....
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98- 00468 COUNSEL : NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her grade at the time she enlisted in the Air National Guard be changed to Airman. Her request was denied because the college transcript from the college was dated 20 January 1998, which is after her date of enlistment. However, she has provided a copy of her college transcript and at the time of her enlistment she...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01067
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01067 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 24 DECEMBER 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separating be changed so he can receive his Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefits. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00584 (Case 2) INDEX CODE: 100.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: It appears the applicant is requesting that his elimination from the Fixed- Wing Qualification Training Course (F-V5A-Q) be removed from his records. On 18 Nov 92, the XXst Flying Training Wing (FTW) commander concurred with the FEB’s findings and recommendations that the applicant should be...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02164
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Retention Manager at his Air National Guard (ANG) Wing never explained the Post-9/11 GI Bill Transfer of Educational Benefits (TEB) to him, and does not have a letter of understanding on file signed by the applicant. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit...