RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02756
INDEX NUMBER: 131.00
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His written declination of the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) be voided and
he be allowed to “accept” and make payment into the program for
eligibility for benefits.
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or unjust
and the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are 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 found at Exhibit C.
_______________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPAT recommends denial of the applicant’s request. The Education
Officer that briefed the applicant encourages all eligible members to
enroll in the MGIB program. He denies advising the applicant or any
other medical officer that MGIB benefits would not pay for additional
medical training.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 20
September 2002 for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a
response has not been received.
_______________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree
with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion
that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
_______________________________________________________________
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 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 Docket Number 02-02756 in
Executive Session on 5 November 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
Ms. Kathleen Graham, Member
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Aug 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPAT, dated 12 Sep 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 20 Sep 02.
JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01166
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided AF Form 3008, Supplement to Enlistment Agreement - United States Air Force, dated 27 August 2002, Election Letter and MGIB, dated 27 August 2002, and an Applicant’s Contract Information Form. However, a review of the supplement to his enlistment contract, AF Form 3008, which he apparently voluntarily signed and initialed on 27 August 2002, indicates that he was briefed on the program, understood that his first enlistment was his only...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02975
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPW recommends the application be denied due to lack of sufficient evidence to support the applicant’s claim. Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Sep 02. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPW, dated 3 Dec 02, w/atch Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Dec 02.
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02717
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 12 September 1955 for a period of 4 years. Other 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. The Air Force Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade on 28 October 1958.
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 12 September 1955 for a period of 4 years. Other 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. The Air Force Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade on 28 October 1958.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01774 INDEX CODE: 100.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be allowed a second opportunity to enroll in the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB). Although the applicant may have been under the impression the MGIB could not be used for graduate studies, she presented no evidence of miscounseling or...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | 2006-02698
We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2006-02698 in Executive Session on 20 December...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02275
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02275 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 XXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded a campaign medal for participation in “Operation Urgent Fury.” ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The reasons the applicant believes the records...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00882
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-00882 INDEX CODE: 126.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Article 15 be set aside so that her discharge can be upgraded so that she may qualify for Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefits. The service member may then consult with a defense counsel to determine whether to accept nonjudicial...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02025
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02025 INDEX NUMBER: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _____________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Purple Heart for injuries he sustained on 29 June 1952. The applicant’s DD Form 214, item 29, “wounds received as a result of action with enemy forces” reflects a hand injury caused by explosion...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02741
She was honorably discharged on 22 Oct 02. The DVA awards MGIB benefits to service members who receive an honorable discharge and serve on active duty for three continuous years. An honorable reduction for one of the following reasons may result in a reduction of the required length of active duty: (1) convenience of the government; (2) disability; (3) hardship; (4) a medical condition existing before service (5) force reductions; or (6) physical or mental conditions which prevent...