RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03796
            INDEX CODE:  100.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be allowed to participate in the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He  recently  discovered  he  was  not  permitted  to  participate  in   the
Montgomery  GI  Bill  (MGIB)  and  has  no   educational   benefits.    More
importantly, he also discovered there  is  no  record  the  Air  Force  ever
offered him the opportunity to  accept  or  decline  any  education  benefit
program.  He would like to rectify this omission and  have  the  opportunity
to enter into the MGIB.  For him  to  successfully  apply  to  the  Veterans
Administration (VA) for the MGIB, it will require the Board to  rectify  the
omission.  He entered the Air Force under the Veterans Education  Assistance
Program (VEAP) category 4A.  According to the VA Education Case  Manager  he
should have been briefed and afforded the  opportunity  to  convert  to  the
MGIB  under  chapter  3230,  and   this   should   have   been   documented.
Additionally, there were three windows of opportunity for  this  conversion.
The VA case manager stated VEAP was a transitional program that  could  have
been managed better and as a result, miscommunication of  benefits  was  and
still is very common.  During the three windows of  opportunity  to  convert
to the MGIB, he was stationed in locations where  the  administration  flow,
regarding educational benefits, was not  reliable.   None  of  the  agencies
that attend to this type of matter  had  on  record  a  DD  Form  2366  MGIB
contract, which shows he accepted or declined  educational  benefits  during
the course of his career.  According to these  agencies,  the  existence  of
this form in his records would prove he was  offered  educational  benefits.
The form’s absence from his records  indicates  he  was  not  offered  these
benefits.  Moreover, he does not  recall  ever  receiving  or  signing  this
form.   Because  of  the  absence  of  evidence  showing  he  was  notified,
counseled, or provided this  form,  combined  with  his  testimony  of  non-
receipt on all counts one can only conclude he  was  inadvertently  excluded
from participating, and therefore,  unjustly  denied  equal  opportunity  to
education benefits.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was commissioned and entered active duty on 18 May  1978.   He
is currently serving on active duty in the grade of  colonel  effective  and
with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 April 1999.

VEAP was enacted by Congress (38 U.S.C., Ch.  32)  to  provide  a  voluntary
education benefit for Armed Services personnel entering active duty  between
1 January 1977 and 30 June 1985.  The MGIB was enacted (38  U.S.C.,  Ch  30)
and became effective 1  July  1985.   VEAP  was  a  voluntary  program  that
offered a maximum $8100 benefit to participants.   Air  Force  guidance  was
promulgated  by  the  Director  of  Personnel  and  executed  by  Air  Force
Education Services Program personnel.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAT recommended denial.  They indicated Air Force  guidance  required
all eligible personnel to hear a VEAP briefing at accession  training,  upon
entry to active duty, one  year  thereafter,  and  at  newcomer’s  briefings
subsequent to each PCS move.  Information was also  provided  on  leave  and
earnings statements (LESs), at commander’s calls, in daily  bulletins,  base
newspapers, personal letters, and on demand at base education  offices.   As
required by PL 98-525 and PL 99-576, the Air Force conducted  an  aggressive
publicity campaign and held mass  briefings  during  1985  through  1987  to
inform nonparticipants of VEAP’s termination, and  that  the  last  date  to
become a participant was 31 March 1987.  The above listed methods were  used
to contact individuals of the enrollment deadline.  Individuals desiring  to
take advantage of the program were told to start an  allotment--or  make  an
initial deposit--at the local accounting and finance office.

Congress later opened two windows of opportunity for  VEAP  participants  to
convert their benefits to the more  lucrative  MGIB.   The  first,  in  1996
through 1997, included VEAP participants with money  in  an  account,  while
the second, in 2001, allowed those having money, or at one time,  had  money
in a VEAP account to  convert.   Current  participants  can  stop,  restart,
increase, and decrease their contributions  only  while  serving  on  active
duty.  They can also receive  a  refund  of  unused  money.   Department  of
Veterans Affairs and Defense Finance and  Accounting  Service  records  show
the applicant never initiated a VEAP account and was, therefore,  ineligible
to participate in either conversion window.

The applicant chose not to participate in the VEAP and, therefore,  did  not
qualify for either of the conversion windows.   His  record  correctly  does
not include a DD Form 2366.  They  find  Air  Force  policy  and  procedures
relative to VEAP were more than adequate and provided equal opportunity  for
all VEAP era individuals  to  be  made  aware  of  VEAP  and  make  informed
enrollment decisions.  The Air Force  is  not  responsible  for  a  personal
decision made relative to a voluntary program when that  program  was  well-
known and regularly briefed to all eligible personnel.  Nor was there  error
regarding the conversion windows since the  program  was  widely  publicized
throughout DoD.  The applicant did not submit a  timely  request  since  the
opportunity to participate in VEAP ended on 31 March  1987.   Approval  will
violate  the  law,  as  relief  is  only  available   if   Congress   enacts
legislation.  Should the Board provide relief, they recommend the  applicant
only be allowed to enroll in VEAP.  An individual  from  their  office  will
then contact the applicant and provide enrollment instruction.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 14 May 2004, a copy of the Air Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant for review and response within 30  days.   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 timely filed.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of an 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  and  adopt  their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not  been
the victim of an error or an injustice.  As  we  understand  the  issue,  by
law, individuals were eligible to participate  in  the  VEAP  upon  entering
active duty between 1 January 1977 and 30 June 1985.   Congress  opened  two
windows of opportunity for VEAP participants to convert  their  benefits  to
the MGIB in 1996 through 1997 and in 2001.  The applicant  was  commissioned
and entered active duty in May 1978 and was eligible to participate,  if  he
so desired, in the  VEAP;  however,  he  apparently  chose  not  to  do  so.
Therefore, since he chose not to enroll in the VEAP, he did not qualify  for
either conversion window for the MGIB.  Although the applicant indicates  he
was not informed regarding the program,  he  has  not  submitted  persuasive
evidence to support his claim.  Therefore, in the  absence  of  evidence  to
the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting  the  relief
sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of an error or an 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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2003-
03796 in Executive Session on 15 June 2004, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
                 Mr. James E. Short, Member
                 Mr. Albert C. Ellett, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 November 2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Military Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAT, dated 30 April 2004.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 May 2004.




                       JOHN L. ROBUCK
                       Panel Chair