RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01550
INDEX CODE: 128.11
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 8 AUG 2006
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to show he elected to participate in the
Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was misled in his actions that resulted in denial of MGIB benefits.
He received a very quick briefing on the MGIB and decided to sign up
for the program, but mistakenly signed each and every block and
assumed he was completing the form correctly. He believes that
although he signed the block to disenroll from the program, he also
signed the block to enroll, which was his intention from the
beginning. In a letter dated, 14 March 2005, the applicant states
several procedural errors were made and that he should be granted
reenrollment in the MGIB.
In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement, DD
Form 2366, Montgomery GI Bill Act of 1984 Basic Enrollment.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 10 June 2003, in
the grade of airman basic and was progressively promoted to the grade
of airman first class.
On 19 June 2003, he completed DD Form 2366, and was disenrolled from
the MGIB.
On 12 June 2004, AFPC/DPPAT informed the applicant that his mistake in
signing the disenrollment block of DD Form 2366 was not a government
error and MGIB briefings are very structured so an individual will not
make errors that change his or her desire. Individual must make a
conscious effort to decline the MGIB, and except in the most unusual
circumstances, the law forbids a reversal of the enrollment decision.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPAT recommends denial. The Montgomery GI Bill, (38 USC, Chapter
30), provides benefits for a variety of education and training
programs. The law stipulates all MGIB eligible individuals are
automatically enrolled in the MGIB upon entering active duty and are
given a one-time opportunity to disenroll should they desire not to
participate in the program. Eligible applicants may disenroll after a
detailed lecture on benefits. Disenrollment is done by signing the
statement of disenrollment on the DD Form 2366.
DPPAT states the applicant provided no evidence of government error or
miscounseling during the MGIB briefing and the DD Form 2366 is
completed as a legal declination. This request is an attempt to
reenroll in the MGIB after the applicant declined benefits and is in
violation of the law.
The AFPC/DPPAT evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
24 Mar 05, for review and comment 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. Evidence has not been provided
which would lead us to believe that the rules of the applicable
regulations, which implement the policy, were inappropriately applied
or that he was denied rights to which he was entitled. Applicant
contends that he received a very quick briefing on the MGIB program
and mistakenly signed the form disenrolling him from the MGIB program.
However, based on the evidence of record, he has failed to
substantiate that he was improperly counseled regarding his
entitlements to the MGIB, or that procedural errors were made by the
Air Force. 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 Docket Number BC-2004-
01550 in Executive Session on 24 May 2005 under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Vice Chair
Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
Mr. Michael V. Barbolino, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Mar 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAT, dated 24 Mar 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Apr 05.
MARILYN THOMAS
Vice Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01006
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01006 INDEX CODE: 128.11 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 5 OCTOBER 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to show he elected to participate in the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB). The law stipulates all MGIB eligible individuals are automatically enrolled in the MGIB...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03000C
It appears the applicant intended not to participate in the MGIB Program, and instead enrolled in the College Loan Repayment Program (CLRP) as part of his enlistment contract to pay existing student loans. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Sep 06, w/atchs. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz Vice Chair AFBCMR BC-2006-03000 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00467
She states she did not learn about the benefits of the MGIB program until she was in discussion with other military members after separating from the military. In an effort to provide the applicant an opportunity to present an incontrovertible case supporting her request, she was asked to provide supplementary documentation from witnesses who could corroborate the error or injustice causing her decision to disenroll from the MGIB. Novel, Panel Chair Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member Ms. Jan...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-03119
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 | CY2006 | BC-2005-03265
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03265 INDEX CODE: 128.14 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 28 April 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be allowed an opportunity to reverse his declination to enroll in the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) or his records be corrected to reflect enrollment in the Enlisted College Loan...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00757
The contract states he would be kept in the Inactive Reserves for up to 12 months, which the Air Force exceeded. 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. However, after entering active duty in 1991, he opted to...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02242
Public Law (PL) 101-689 was established to allow those servicemembers who entered active duty from 1 July 1985 through 30 June 1988, who declined participation in the MGIB upon entry on active duty, another opportunity to enroll during the open period. The evidence of record indicates the applicant was afforded the opportunity to enroll in the MGIB in 1985 and again in 1989 and declined participation on both occasions. Therefore, in view of the foregoing, and in the absence of...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02595
In support of her application, applicant provided a personal letter, and DD Form 2366, Montgomery GI Bill Act of 1984 Basic Enrollment. The law stipulates that all MGIB-eligible individuals are automatically enrolled in the MGIB upon entering active duty and are given a one-time opportunity to disenroll should they desire not to participate in the program. The applicant's record reflects her decision on 8 March 1999 not to participate in the MGIB program and her understanding she would not...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03456
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of six emails, and a copy of a letter requesting MGIB enrollment, with attachments. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPAT states that the applicant submitted a DD Form 2366 dated 14 January 2002 in which she has elected disenrollment from the MGIB program. In the applicant’s master record is a DD Form 2366 dated 29 January 2002.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01930
DPPAT states that the law stipulates all MGIB eligible individuals are automatically enrolled in the MGIB upon entering active duty and are given a one- time opportunity to disenroll should they desire not to participate in the program. The information provided to the applicant during the MGIB briefing and BTES is correct in that TA will pay for a master’s degree. The HQ AFPC/DPPAT evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S...