RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00757
            INDEX CODE:  100.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be enrolled in the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His Air Force Reserve Officer  Training  Corps  (AFROTC)  contract  was  not
honored.  The contract states he would be kept in the Inactive Reserves  for
up to 12 months,  which  the  Air  Force  exceeded.   He  indicates  he  was
misinformed about the MGIB.  He was not on  a  scholarship  and  planned  on
pursuing an advanced degree using the MGIB.  The  voided  contract  was  one
example of why he should be allowed to reenroll in the MGIB.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 6 September 1989, the  applicant  signed  an  AF  Form  1056,  Air  Force
Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) Contract.

On 25 May 1991, the applicant was commissioned in the Regular Air  Force  in
the grade of second lieutenant.  The applicant was promoted to the grade  of
major effective and with a date of rank of 1 September 2002.

On 23 June 1992, the applicant signed a DD Form  2366,  Montgomery  GI  Bill
Act of 1984.  Block 3, Statement of Disenrollment, indicates the  following:
 “I do not desire to participate in the MGIB.  I understand that I WILL  NOT
be able to enroll at a later date.”

_________________________________________________________________





AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAT recommended denial.  They indicated  the  applicant  received  an
official MGIB briefing at Goodfellow AFB after  entering  active  duty.   An
education counselor gave the briefing.  The counselor provided  a  statement
on 5 April 2004, which includes the following:  individuals  could  have  36
months of benefits “while…working towards a Master’s or Doctorate” and  that
the officers had a “one-time chance to sign up…and regardless  whether  they
accepted or declined, they would not be able to change  their  minds…”   The
counselor’s statement accurately reflects Air Force  briefing  requirements,
as well as the requirements of 38 USC  3011.   The  MGIB  can  be  used  for
graduate school and individuals who have a one-time irrevocable  opportunity
to elect not to participate in the program.

The applicant believes his “commissioning records” erroneously show that  he
refused the option to accept  the  MGIB.   They  believe  the  applicant  is
referring to the DD Form 2366, Montgomery GI Bill Act of 1984, on  which  he
made the MGIB election and which the  counselor  witnessed.   The  applicant
also claims a staff sergeant misinformed him  at  the  time  he  signed  the
enlistment contract and said the “voided contract is  just  one  example  of
why he should be allowed to re-enroll in the  MGIB.”   The  ROTC  enlistment
contract is not void or the applicant would not have served nearly 12  years
of active duty.  The applicant does not state how he was misinformed by  the
staff  sergeant  or  present  evidence  supporting  his  application.    Any
statement would, however,  be  irrelevant  because  the  applicant  received
correct information at the official MGIB briefing  by  the  counselor.   The
applicant was given accurate information at the 23 June 1992  MGIB  briefing
and exercised his right to disenroll.  The applicant does  not  provide  any
evidence of wrongdoing or error on the part of the government.   Should  the
Board grant  relief,  the  applicant  will  be  contacted  and  directed  to
complete another DD Form 2366.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 16 April 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, all eligible individuals are automatically enrolled in  the  MGIB  when
entering active duty and are given one opportunity  to  disenroll  from  the
program.  It appears the applicant was initially eligible  and  enrolled  in
the MGIB because his source of commission indicated he  did  not  receive  a
Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) scholarship  or  professional  officer
course  incentive  (POCI)  funds  during  the  last  school  term  prior  to
graduation and commissioning.  However, after entering active duty in  1991,
he opted to disenroll from the MGIB on 23 June 1992 when he  signed  the  DD
Form 2366 indicating his desire to not  participate  in  the  MGIB  and  his
understanding he would not be eligible to enroll at a later date.   Although
the applicant indicates he was misinformed regarding  the  program,  he  has
not submitted evidence that he was  not  properly  counseled  regarding  his
entitlement.  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-2004-
00757 in Executive Session on 18 May 2004, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member
                 Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 November 2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Military Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAT, dated 9 April 2004.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 April 2004.




                       BRENDA L. ROMINE
                       Panel Chair