RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01533
            INDEX NUMBER:  128.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His decision not to participate in the Montgomery GI  Bill  (MGIB)  be
voided and he be allowed to enroll in the MGIB.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When he entered active duty from the Air National Guard, the recruiter
marked his rank wrong, but advised him it would be corrected instantly
when he arrived at his assigned duty station.  This was not  the  case
and it actually took nine months.  The error caused a problem with his
pay and was ongoing when he was briefed on participation in the  MGIB.
He requested disenrollment from the MGIB because of his  pay  problems
with the understanding that  he  could  enroll  later  after  the  pay
problems were resolved.  He later found  he  could  not  enroll  after
having elected previously to disenroll.  He was also not made aware of
a period between Dec 88 and Jun 89 when he could have enrolled in  the
program.

In support of his appeal, applicant provides a detailed statement with
supporting documents.

The applicant’s complete appeal, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered active duty in the  Air  Force  as  an
enlisted member in 1988.  On 7 Jul 88, he  declined  participation  in
the MGIB.  In 1999, the applicant was commissioned as  an  officer  in
the Air Force.  He is presently serving on active duty in the grade of
captain.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date is 29 May 87.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAT  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s   request.    The
applicant offers no  evidence  that  the  Education  Office  counselor
miscounseled him or promised that he could later reverse the  decision
not to participate in the MGIB.  Additionally, after 16 years,  it  is
not  possible  for  the  government  to  confirm  or  deny  the  facts
surrounding his counseling and election.

As a direct duty airman, the Education office would have counseled the
applicant.  In addition to the printed statement warning him about the
implication of disenrolling, the applicant wrote, “No I  do  not  want
G.I. Bill” on the form.  The applicant’s pay  problems  were  resolved
shortly after he signed the DD Form 2366 and before  any  money  would
have been taken from his pay.  Pay documents show that  the  applicant
was not paid regularly for only two months.  Also, had  the  applicant
accepted the MGIB, the $100 per month pay  reduction  would  not  have
occurred until he was paid on a regular basis.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the Air Force evaluation, the applicant explains in
greater detail the circumstances that  led  to  his  decision  not  to
participate in the MGIB.  He points out he did not  believe  he  could
afford to participate in the MGIB due to his pay problems.  He did not
believe at the time he disenrolled from the MGIB  his  pay  and  grade
problems would be quickly fixed.  He also explains why  he  waited  so
long to seek correction of his record from the AFBCMR.  The  applicant
states that the one-strike policy governing participation in the  MGIB
is not reasonable.  He believes individuals who commit  themselves  to
the Air Force beyond the initial four years should  be  given  another
opportunity  to  enroll,  especially   when   there   are   mitigating
circumstances.  He also believes that individuals whose status changes
from enlisted to officer should be given another opportunity to enroll
in the program.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

In considering the applicant’s appeal, the Board noted should it grant
the requested relief, the  applicant,  in  all  likelihood,  would  be
required to pay the $1200.00 MGIB enrollment cost,  possibly  in  lump
sum.  In view of this, a letter  was  sent  to  the  applicant  asking
whether he was aware of this and, if so, still desired  the  Board  to
consider the requested relief (Exhibit F).  The applicant responded he
was willing to pay the $1200.00 and  desired  the  Board  continue  to
process his application.

The applicant’s response is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided  by  existing
law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice.  The majority of  the
Board believes the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s pay at
the time of his election played a  key  role  in  his  decision  to
disenroll from the MGIB.  Although his pay problems  were  resolved
before any money  would  have  been  deducted  from  his  pay,  the
majority of the Board finds his decision at  the  time  reasonable,
given the uncertainty he had about his pay account.  We believe the
unique circumstances of this  case  justify  an  exception  to  the
normal policy  barring  enrollment  in  the  MGIB  after  initially
electing to  disenroll.   Therefore,  the  majority  of  the  Board
recommends the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 7 July 1988, he
executed DD Form 2366, Veterans Educational Assistance Act of  1984
(New GI Bill), and elected to enroll in the “New GI Bill.”

___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2004-
01533 in Executive Session on 5 October 2004 and 26  October  2004,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member
      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member

By majority vote, the  Board  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as
recommended.  Mr. Russell voted to deny  the  applicant’s  request,
but did not elect to  submit  a  minority  report.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Apr 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPAT, dated 27 Jul 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Aug 04.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 16 Sep 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Oct 04.
    Exhibit G.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 12 Oct 04.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2004-01533


MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the
authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat
116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that on 7
July 1988 he executed DD Form 2366, Veterans Educational Assistance
Act of 1984 (New GI Bill), and elected to enroll in the “New GI
Bill.”





            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency