RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 04-00175
INDEX CODE: 100.03
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be eligible for the Veterans' Education Assistance Program (VEAP) or the
Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The DD Form 2057, Contributory Educational Assistance Program Statement of
Understanding, he signed on 30 December 1981 and 29 July 1982, states that
although he elects not to participate in the VEAP, he can enroll in the
program at any time during his service on active duty. He has made several
attempts over his enlistment to enroll and has been denied every time. He
truly feels that if he was given the opportunity to contribute one dollar,
prior to the VEAP being discontinued, he would not have the problems he is
faced with today. He was never made aware that the written agreement
between him and the Air Force would become invalid. The Air Force should
have made everyone sign a new DD Form 2057, to ensure everyone knew that
the educational benefits would change permanently.
In support of his request, applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 2057.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 31 January 2004, the applicant was relieved from active duty and was
retired in the grade of master sergeant (E-7) effective 1 February 2004.
Applicant was credited with 22 years and 23 days of total active duty
service for basic pay and 21 years, 6 months and 12 days active service for
retirement.
On 30 December 1981, applicant signed the DD Form 2057, Contributory
Educational Assistance Program, electing not to enroll in the VEAP.
However, the form stated he could enroll in the program at any time during
his service on active duty.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to his VEAP, are contained in the
letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPAT recommends the application be denied. DPPAT states that
approval of the applicant’s request will violate the law. The applicant
did not make a timely request nor provide evidence of government error or
injustice. DPPAT advises that the government made a concerted effort to
advertise the need for individuals to enroll in VEAP prior to its
termination. The AFPC/DPPAT evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant reiterates that he was never informed that he could contribute
one dollar but that he needed to contribute 12 monthly installments of
$100. He states that the Air Force never briefed him on the MGIB
legislation and they should have briefed him and had him sign a statement
documenting the change. He is willing to pay the dollar amount necessary
to enroll in the MGIB. Applicant’s letter 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 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 error or injustice. The applicant asserts he made several
attempts over his enlistment to enroll in the Veterans’ Education
Assistance Program (VEAP) or the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) but has provided
no documentary evidence to support this claim. We are unaware of any
requirement that the applicant should have been personally briefed
regarding the changes from the VEAP and MGIB, as he seems to believe. If,
as the applicant claims, he began his attempts to enroll after the 1982
through 1987 window of opportunity, based on the law at that time, it would
appear that his requests were properly denied. We believe that the Air
Force made adequate efforts to advertise the need for individuals to open a
VEAP account if they desired any veteran’s education benefits. We do not
find the evidence submitted by the applicant sufficient to determine that
he has been the victim of an error or injustice or that he was treated
differently than other similarly situated service members. Therefore, we
agree with the assessment by the Air Force office of primary responsibility
and adopt their conclusion as our findings in the case.
_________________________________________________________________
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 12 May 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Member
Ms. Martha J. Evans, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Jan 04, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, APFC/DPPAT, dated 25 Mar 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Apr 04.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 19 Apr 04.
JOHN L. ROBUCK
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01839
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01839 INDEX CODE: 100.00 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 18 December 2007 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to show that he elected to participate in the Veteran’s Education Assistance Program (VEAP), contributed $2,700.00 in the program, and...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00826
Although he indicated that he elected to participate in the program via Part II of the DD Form 2057, the applicant never initiated an allotment to contribute. As such, he was never enrolled in the program. ________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-04010
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-04010 INDEX CODE: 100.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be allowed to contribute a lump sum of $2,700 to the Veterans Education Assistance Program (VEAP), his VEAP account reflect activity beginning in 1982, and he be granted an opportunity to rollover from VEAP to the Montgomery GI...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01719
There is no DD Form 2057, Contributory Educational Assistance Program Statement of Understanding or DD Form 2366, Montgomery GI Bill Act of 1984 (MGIB) on file. The VEAP was enacted by Congress to provide education benefits for individuals entering active duty between 1 Jan 77 and 30 Jun 85. 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.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01012
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01012 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected as indicated below: 1. On 19 Jan 82, the applicant completed the DD Form 2057, which informed her of criteria for participation in the VEAP. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 03830
DPSIT states the applicant attended a Basic Military Training (BMT) VEAP briefing (as evidenced by the DD From 2057) which included statements from the Military Training Instructor (MTI) that signing the DD Form 2057 was a confirmation of the briefing and to enroll, individuals must go to the local Accounting and Finance Office to initiate a monthly allotment. The DPSIT evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2005-00420
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was not informed of the opportunity to convert from the Veterans Educational Assistance Program (VEAP) to the MGIB. On 1 March 2005, AFPC/DPPAT requested applicant provided evidence that supports an error or injustice in notification of her eligibility for the conversion from the VEAP to the MGIB. Congress opened two windows of opportunity for VEAP participants to convert their benefits to the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02642
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02642 INDEX CODE 128.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records reflect he converted from the Veterans Education Assistance Program (VEAP) to the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB). While the applicant did not convert his VEAP benefit to MGIB during the Oct 96-97 window, he was eligible...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04227
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: When he made his decision to voluntarily retire, he was undergoing treatment for depression and due to the medication he was taking was not able to fully understand the ramifications of his decision. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s request for reinstatement to active duty. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00340
While assigned to USMTM, he never received any information or was required to sign any notification of acceptance/denial informing him that Congress had approved a new window for VEAP conversion (7 March 2001 through 31 October 2001). No one from the Education office informed them of the VEAP conversion. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, the Board is not persuaded relief should be granted.