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).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At his last duty tour at  Hill  AFB,  UT,  he  was  sent  on  extended
temporary duty (TDY) to Panama, Colombia, and Peru  from  Jul-Oct  97,
and was unavailable at the base most of Jun and Oct 97.  At that  time
the 75 Air Base Wing (ABW)  contacted  personnel  to  invest  required
funds to keep the GI bill.  When he returned from his  TDY  and  heard
about the changes, he was told it was too late to invest.  He  retired
from active duty 1 Sep 98 and was informed he  either  had  to  be  on
active duty to pay into the new system  or  contact  his  Congressman.
Neither option seemed possible or appropriate.  He did not know  until
recently that he had this form of  redress.   He  wants  to  use  this
education assistance to obtain his PhD.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the US Air Force Academy (USAFA) in Jun 74  and,
upon graduation, entered active duty on 31 May 78.

The VEAP was enacted by  Congress  (Title  38,  USC,  Chapter  32)  to
provide veterans education benefits for  individuals  entering  active
duty between 1 Jan 77 and 30 Jun 85.  It was a voluntary program  that
offered a maximum of  $8,100  in  benefits  to  the  participants  who
contributed  $2,700  to  the  program.   To  enroll  and  participate,
officers and airmen were required to start  an  allotment  or  make  a
deposit.

The educational benefits were revised with the signing of  the  Fiscal
Year 1985 (FY85) Authorization Act and the MGIB was enacted (Title 38,
USC, Chapter 30) and became effective 1 Jul 85.

In a letter dated 29 Apr 85, the 1100 ABW at Bolling AFB notified  the
applicant he was eligible to enroll in the VEAP and had until  30  Jun
85 to enroll.  After that, VEAP enrollment would be suspended  due  to
the new MGIB.  The applicant checked on the letter that  he  had  been
notified of his eligibility for VEAP enrollment and intended to enroll
prior to the new GI Bill (MGIB) legislation taking effect on 1 Jul 85.
 The applicant contributed the minimum  $25.00  to  establish  a  VEAP
benefit account.

According to HQ AFPC/DPPAT, Congress opened a  window  of  opportunity
for VEAP participants to convert their benefits to the more  lucrative
MGIB.  Public Law 99-576 allowed VEAP participants to convert  to  the
MGIB during the period 9 Oct 96 through 8 Oct 97.

The applicant’s Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period  2 May
97 through 1 May 98 comments on his 90-day deployment to Latin America
as an Air Battle Manager Team Chief and Foreign Liaison  Officer,  but
does not indicate the dates of the 90-day TDY.  The applicant received
a Meritorious Service Medal, 1st Oak Leaf Cluster (MSM 1OLC), for  the
period 25 Jul 95 to 31 Aug 98, which mentions the 90-day deployment to
Latin America.  Again, the TDY timeframe is not specified.

The applicant retired in the grade of lieutenant colonel on  1 Sep  98
after 20 years, 3 months and 1 day of active service.

[Note:  Any military member that entered active duty before 1 Jul  85,
when the  MGIB  was  established,  had  only  the  VEAP  benefit;  the
education benefit for those entering after 1 Jul 85 was the MGIB.  The
applicant could not switch to MGIB unless there was an  “open  season”
type of opportunity.  The only opportunity he had to  switch  was  the
Oct 96-97 window.  While  the  applicant  did  not  convert  his  VEAP
benefit to MGIB during the  Oct  96-97  window,  he  was  eligible  to
contribute up to $2700 in his VEAP account.   He  would  then  receive
$8100 in benefits.  However, he did not  make  that  contribution  and
therefore left himself without benefits.  There was another window  in
2001 but since the applicant had already retired, this opportunity was
not applicable.]

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPAT notes the applicant submits no  evidence  of  government
error or injustice.  His untimely request  prejudices  the  government
since records concerning this conversion are no longer available.   He
failed to make an election within the time established  by  law.   The
four-month  deployment  the  applicant  contends  disallowed  him  the
opportunity to convert was  a  military  necessity,  not  error.   The
program was  widely  publicized  throughout  DOD  and  the  Air  Force
advertised the opportunity to convert from VEAP to  the  MGIB  at  all
bases  starting  shortly  after  9 Oct  96.   The  Air  Force  further
satisfied the requirements of PL 99-576  by  distributing  information
through  commanders’  calls,  Leave  and  Earning   Statements   (LES)
announcements,  base  newspaper  articles,  and  official   bulletins.
Granting the applicant’s request will not guarantee the Department  of
Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)  will  award  MGIB   benefits.    Denial   is
recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant contends the only effort to make the program shift known
at Hill AFB was at the end of the program, precisely when he  was  out
of the country.  He could have known about  the  program  through  his
LES, but he was not in  the  habit  of  reading  his  pay  statements.
Further, this hardly seems like a sufficient effort to base a decision
on such important benefits.  The  people  at  Hill  AFB  and  his  TDY
records are not available.  He applied for benefits in Mar 98, only to
be told he was not eligible.  Due to operational necessity, he did not
have the full opportunity to elect to change his benefits status.

A complete copy of  applicant’s  response,  with  attachments,  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.  After a thorough review  of  the
evidence  of  record  and  the  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded his records should reflect conversion from the VEAP  to  the
MGIB.  The applicant’s contentions are duly noted, but we do not  find
these assertions, in and by  themselves,  sufficiently  persuasive  to
override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  The  applicant’s  1
May 98 OPR and the MSM 1OLC confirm his 90-day TDY, although the dates
are not specified.  However, the window of opportunity to  convert  to
the MGIB lasted an entire year  from  9  Oct  96  through  8  Oct  97.
Further, as indicated by HQ AFPC/DPPAT and as we ourselves  recollect,
the opportunity to convert was widely publicized.  We further note the
applicant apparently chose not to fully fund his VEAP  account,  which
would have offered him  some  educational  benefit.   Service  members
share a responsibility to act in  their  own  behalf  and  undoubtedly
others incurred long TDYs  during  this  period.   The  applicant  has
failed to demonstrate how the Air Force is culpable for  his  omission
or that he has been the victim of either an error or an injustice.  We
therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air  Force  and  adopt
the rationale expressed as the basis for  our  decision  that,  absent
persuasive evidence to the contrary, there is no compelling basis upon
which to recommend granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________

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 8 December 2004 under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Martha J. Evans, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member
                 Mr. Michael J. Novel, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2004-02642 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Apr 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAT, dated 22 Sep 04.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Oct 04.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Oct 04, w/atchs.




                                   MARTHA J. EVANS
                                   Panel Chair