Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00006
Original file (BC-2004-00006.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00006
            INDEX CODE:  135.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be entitled to the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefits.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He paid off his full amount before he was  discharged.   He  does  not
only deserve his money, but he earned it.  He really wants to  fulfill
a higher education because that was his goal  before  he  entered  the
military.  However, the Department of Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)  denied
his request for MGIB benefits because he did not receive an  honorable
discharge.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9 February 2000  for  a
period of four years.  He was progressively promoted to the  grade  of
airman first class (E-3).   Following  his  successful  completion  of
basic military and technical training, he was assigned to duties as an
environmental apprentice, on or about 10 August 2000.

The  applicant  received  an  Under  Honorable  Conditions   (General)
discharge because of misconduct on 5 December 2001.  He had  served  1
year, 9 months and 27 days on active duty.

The Air  Force  Discharge  Review  Board  (AFDRB)  denied  applicant’s
request for an upgrade of discharge on 21 August 2002.  A copy of  the
AFDRB hearing record is attached at Exhibit B.

On 19 March 2003, the AFBCMR considered and denied applicant’s request
that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.  A complete  copy
of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit C.

On 28 August  2003,  the  AFBCMR  considered  and  denied  applicant’s
request that his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code  be  upgraded.   A
complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAT states that the DVA may award MGIB education  benefits  (38
USC Chapter 30) to individuals who receive an honorable separation  or
discharge.   In  addition,  the  DVA  cannot   provide   benefits   to
individuals who serve less than four  years  and  are  discharged  for
misconduct.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 20 February 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  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  the  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.   As
stated, the DVA cannot provide benefits to individuals who serve  less
than four years and are discharged for misconduct.  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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 23 June 2004, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                       Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member
                       Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Dec 03.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Records of Proceedings, dated 14 May 2003 and
                       23 Sep 2003, w/atchs.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPAT, dated 13 Feb 04.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Feb 04.




                             THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                             Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00066

    Original file (BC-2005-00066.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His security forces commander assured him that he would have educational benefits under the (MGIB). They provided no recommendation. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03216

    Original file (BC-2004-03216.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPRS asserts that, based on the documentation on file in the applicant’s records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the discretion of the discharge authority. As the applicant presents no facts warranting a change to her SPD code, denial is recommended. On 3 Feb 03, she requested discharge from active duty due to pregnancy and separated on 1 May 03...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03873

    Original file (BC-2002-03873.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The law stipulates all MGIB- eligible individuals are automatically enrolled in the MGIB upon entering active duty and are given a one-time opportunity...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03471

    Original file (BC-2003-03471.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2004 | bc-2003-03571

    Original file (bc-2003-03571.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 31 July 2003, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied his request to upgrade his discharge. The AFPC/DPPAT evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 19 December 2003 for review and response within 30 days. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00802

    Original file (BC-2003-00802.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00802 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation be changed for the purpose of qualifying for Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefits under Category III and Category IV. She had completed a total of 2 years, 3 months and 17 days of active service...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00028

    Original file (BC-2004-00028.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 30 January 1964, he appeared before a board of officers and the findings and recommendation was to separate him with an under other than honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge. The base legal services reviewed the report from the board of officers and found it legally sufficient to support the findings and recommendation to discharge him with an under other than honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge. On 8 April 1964, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02205

    Original file (BC-2004-02205.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    As for his separation date, he was not supposed to separate until after 23 Jul 04. The law provides for benefits for an individual who separates with less than a full term of service if the reason for discharge is Secretarial Authority, hardship, service-connected disability, disability existing prior to service (EPTS), physical or mental condition that interferes with duty, or reduction in force (RIF). While his separation date may have been beyond his control, we are persuaded he...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-03119

    Original file (BC-2003-03119.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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-2004-02144

    Original file (BC-2004-02144.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Eligibility for ECLRP is determined by Air Force Recruiting Services at the time a member enlists into the Air Force. On 31 Aug 04, HQ FPC/DPPAT requested the applicant provide evidence showing he was provided “untrue” information at BMT regarding the MGIB. _________________________________________________________________ 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...