RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03873
INDEX NUMBER: 128.00
XXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
_____________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
She be made eligible for Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefits.
_____________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was miscounseled at Commissioned Officer Training (COT) that she was
not eligible for GI Bill benefits due to her career status as a Dentist.
In support of her application, applicant provides two statements of
support corroborating the miscounselling from other dentists that
attended training with her.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_____________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this case are found in the evaluation
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.
38 USC, Chapter 30, Montgomery GI Bill, provides benefits for a variety
of education and training programs, including those for dentists seeking
additional training or certification. The law stipulates all MGIB-
eligible individuals are automatically enrolled in the MGIB upon entering
active duty and are given a one-time opportunity to disenroll should they
desire not to participate in the program. They may disenroll after
hearing a briefing. The applicant’s records indicate a decision to
disenroll on 9 Jul 98.
The individual that conducted the COT briefings during the time the
applicant attended indicates that he always encouraged the officers to
participate in the MGIB as they may want to continue or expand their
education at a future date. AFPC/DPPAT states that they reviewed the
content and presentation of the COT briefing on 11 Jun 98 and found it to
be correct. They point out issues with the letters of support provided
by the applicant. The applicant has not presented any substantiated
evidence of government error or miscounselling.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_____________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluation by pointing out what
she considers several flaws in the logic contained in it. Among her
assertions is the fact that she submitted three statements from active
duty Air Force officers, including her own, attesting to the validity of
her claim. She states that she has served five years as an Air Force
dental officer and believes that she should have the same benefits as
anyone else leaving active duty.
The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.
_____________________________________________________________
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. While we cannot dispute whether or not
the applicant was confused regarding her entitlements under the
Montgomery GI Bill, we are not persuaded that she took all the actions
within her means to get any vague issues clarified. We note that the
author of one of her letters of support chose to remain enrolled in the
program unlike the applicant. The same individual indicates that “five
years later” she and the applicant “remain confused” regarding the MGIB.
If this is the case, why does the applicant now desire to enroll? We do
not find the evidence submitted by the applicant sufficient to determine
that she has been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to grant the
requested relief.
_____________________________________________________________
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 BC-2002-03873
in Executive Session on 1 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Member
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Nov 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPAT, dated 18 Feb 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Feb 03.
Exhibit E. Memorandum, Applicant, dated 12 Mar 03.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Vice Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03456
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of six emails, and a copy of a letter requesting MGIB enrollment, with attachments. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPAT states that the applicant submitted a DD Form 2366 dated 14 January 2002 in which she has elected disenrollment from the MGIB program. In the applicant’s master record is a DD Form 2366 dated 29 January 2002.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03184
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She requested the monies paid in her behalf under the College Loan Repayment Program (CLRP) be refunded to the Air Force because her school closed. On 8 December 2006, AFPC/DPPAT requested the applicant provide documentation to support that the amount of $5,420 paid to her lending institution under the CLRP was, in fact, returned to the United States Treasury. There is no evidence to support the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-03119
While it does appear that the applicant voluntarily signed the Montgomery GI Bill Statement of Disenrollment, the Board does not find it unreasonable that someone of his grade and time in the Air Force did not fully comprehend the impact of this action or that he mistakenly signed in the wrong block. As such, we believe that the applicant should be given the benefit of the doubt regarding his assertion that his disenrollment from the MGIB was unintentional. The following documentary...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01550
On 19 June 2003, he completed DD Form 2366, and was disenrolled from the MGIB. Applicant contends that he received a very quick briefing on the MGIB program and mistakenly signed the form disenrolling him from the MGIB program. However, based on the evidence of record, he has failed to substantiate that he was improperly counseled regarding his entitlements to the MGIB, or that procedural errors were made by the Air Force.
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 | CY2004 | BC-2003-03471
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03471 INDEX CODE: COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be allowed to participate in the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) program. His records reflect his decision to disenroll from the MGIB. After serving over five years and paying the required $1200, the Air Force states that he elected not to...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00467
She states she did not learn about the benefits of the MGIB program until she was in discussion with other military members after separating from the military. In an effort to provide the applicant an opportunity to present an incontrovertible case supporting her request, she was asked to provide supplementary documentation from witnesses who could corroborate the error or injustice causing her decision to disenroll from the MGIB. Novel, Panel Chair Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member Ms. Jan...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01930
DPPAT states that the law stipulates all MGIB eligible individuals are automatically enrolled in the MGIB upon entering active duty and are given a one- time opportunity to disenroll should they desire not to participate in the program. The information provided to the applicant during the MGIB briefing and BTES is correct in that TA will pay for a master’s degree. The HQ AFPC/DPPAT evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00246
The Deputy Chief of Staff, Manpower and Personnel, released an FY07 Force Shaping message outlining the voluntary separation pay (VSP) incentives which pays a lump sum payment to officers who voluntarily separate from active duty. The opportunity to participate or reverse a previous declination to participate in MGIB, if previously considered ineligible, is not authorized by the SecAF for those individuals who elect to separate voluntarily. We took notice of the applicant's complete...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02595
In support of her application, applicant provided a personal letter, and DD Form 2366, Montgomery GI Bill Act of 1984 Basic Enrollment. The law stipulates that all MGIB-eligible individuals are automatically enrolled in the MGIB upon entering active duty and are given a one-time opportunity to disenroll should they desire not to participate in the program. The applicant's record reflects her decision on 8 March 1999 not to participate in the MGIB program and her understanding she would not...