RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00340
            INDEX CODE:  100.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  1 AUGUST 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be allowed to convert from the Veterans  Educational  Assistance  Program
(VEAP) to the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was on a special duty assignment, (permanent party) to the United  States
Military Training Mission (USMTM) to Saudi  Arabia  from  November  2000  to
November 2003.  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).

The Education Office assigned to the theater serviced the deployed unit  but
had an agreement to support the permanent party personnel assigned.  No  one
from the Education office informed them of the VEAP conversion.

He further  indicates  his  family  was  assigned  to  Wright-Patterson  AFB
housing while he was remote and his spouse had power  of  attorney  for  all
actions.  She received all Leave and Earning Statements (LES)  in  order  to
continue paying bills, etc.  Upon his  return  he  contacted  the  Education
Office (March 2004) to inquire about the VEAP program and was informed  them
he never received notification he could buy  back  into  the  VEAP/GI  Bill.
After numerous contacts with the Education Service Specialist in  regard  to
the VEAP conversion he was informed that he had to complete  an  application
for correction of military records.





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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 17 February 1982, the applicant enlisted in the Regular  Air  Force.   He
continued to reenlist contracting his last enlistment on 15 July  2003.   He
is currently serving in the grade of technical sergeant effective  and  with
a date of rank (DOR) of 1 December 1999.

On 10 February 2005, AFPC/DPPAT,  informed  the  applicant  that  additional
documentation was required to properly evaluate his case.   They  asked  him
to provide evidence  that  supports  a  government  error  or  injustice  in
notification of his eligibility for the conversion  from  the  VEAP  to  the
MGIB.  They further indicated his personal choice appointing his  spouse  as
his Attorney-in-Fact, having her receive his LESes, and not acknowledge  the
official VEAP/MGIB conversion opportunity announced on  his  LES  statements
was not a government error or injustice.

On 13 February 2005, the applicant responded to  AFPC/DPPAT’s  letter  dated
10 February 2005, and indicated he attached all of his LESes which  came  to
his home address while stationed in Saudi Arabia.  He was enrolled  in  VEAP
and in the late 1980’s decided to  take  all  of  his  money  out  with  the
understanding from  his  Education  Office  Representative  that  before  he
retired he could put a lump sum back into  the  program.   He  was  informed
that since he did not keep at least $1.00 in the account he  no  longer  had
an account.  He further indicates his LESes (January 2001 through  September
2001) state, “Public Law 106-419 provides an opportunity for personnel  with
VEAP accounts to enroll in the MGIB.  See your Education Service  Office  or
Personnel Office for details.”  He states if this is true - only  those  who
maintained an active account were eligible to convert to the MGIB.

VEAP was enacted by Congress (38 U.S.C., Chapter  32)  to  provide  veterans
education benefits for individuals entering active duty  between  1  January
1977 and 30 June 1985.  The MGIB was enacted (38  U.S.C.,  Chapter  30)  and
became effective 1 July 1985.  VEAP was a voluntary program that  offered  a
maximum $8,100 benefit to the  participants.   To  enroll  and  participate,
officers and airman were required to start an allotment or make  a  deposit.
DOD records show the applicant contributed the minimum of $25  to  establish
VEAP benefits.

Congress opened two windows 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.  The law required  applicants  to  make
an election to convert benefits from 9 October 1996 through 8 October  1997.
 Congress subsequently opened another conversion period  in  2001.   Members
were required to make an election between 1  November  2000  to  31  October
2001.  The applicant was eligible for the latter conversion opportunity.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAT recommended denial indicating the applicant contends he  was  not
informed of the opportunity  to  convert.   He  contends  he  appointed  his
spouse as the Attorney-in-Fact, having her receive  his  Leave  and  Earning
Statements (LES) - an authorized notification medium to  announce  programs.
The  applicant’s  spouse  did  not  acknowledge   the   official   VEAP/MGIB
conversion  opportunity  announced  on  the  LES  and  did  not  inform  the
applicant of the opportunity.

Their office consulted with HQ  AFPC/JA  to  determine  the  possibility  of
administrative relief for the applicant.  It was determined the  applicant’s
personal  choice,  appointing  his  spouse  as  Attorney-in-Fact   and   not
acknowledge  the  official  VEAP/MGIB  conversion  opportunity,  is  not   a
government error or injustice.

All of the military departments advertised the opportunity to  convert  from
VEAP to the MGIB at  all  bases  during  the  2001  conversion  opportunity.
Publicity was included in the Air Force Times, as well  as  flyers,  emails,
etc.  The Air Force satisfied the requirements  of  Public  Law  106-419  by
distributing information at commander’s call, Leave  and  Earning  Statement
announcements, base newspaper articles, and official bulletins.

The delay in this request prejudices the Air  Force  in  that  many  of  the
records and advertisements  are  no  longer  available  to  determine  which
direct advertising was conducted at the applicant’s station of assignment.

Approval of the applicant’s request will  violate  38  United  States  Code,
Chapter 30, Section 3018C.  Time  frames  for  the  conversion  period  were
determined by public law.  There  was  no  error  regarding  the  conversion
window opportunity since the program was widely  publicized  throughout  DOD
as evidenced by the applicant’s LESes.   The  member  remains  eligible  for
VEAP and may pay into his VEAP account prior to separation by  accomplishing
one of the following:  contact the Defense Finance  and  Accounting  Service
and confirm the current amount in the VEAP  account.   He  may  fund  up  to
$2,700 while on active duty.  They strongly urge that he keep copies of  all
payment records or the applicant can start a monthly allotment  through  the
local finance  office.   Allotments  must  continue  for  three  consecutive
months.

The evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 22 April 2005, 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.   After  a  thorough  review  of  the
evidence of  record  and  the  applicant’s  submission,  the  Board  is  not
persuaded relief should be granted.  The applicant’s  contentions  are  duly
noted; however, the  Board  does  not  find  these  assertions,  in  and  by
themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the  rationale  provided  by
the Air Force office of primary responsibility.  The applicant indicates  he
was on a special duty assignment to Saudi Arabia and was never  informed  of
the opportunity to convert from the MGIB  to  the  VEAP.   It  is  noted  he
appointed his spouse as  Attorney-In-Fact  for  all  actions;  however,  his
spouse apparently did not advise him of  the  opportunity  to  convert  from
VEAP to MGIB during the enrollment period.  The information was included  on
his LES statements.  While it is unfortunate the  applicant  did  not  avail
himself of the conversion, it was his choice to appoint his  spouse  to  act
as Attorney-In-Fact and as such, she did not acknowledge the  official  VEAP
conversion program opportunity as announced in the applicant’s monthly  LES.
 In this situation, the applicant presents insufficient evidence  of  either
an  error  or  an  injustice.   All  military  departments  advertised   the
opportunity to convert from VEAP to the MGIB at all bases  during  the  2001
conversion opportunity.  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 the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or an injustice; the application was denied without  a
personal appearance; and 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-2005-
00340 in Executive Session on 16 June 2005, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Martha J. Evans, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member
                 Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 January 2005.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAT, dated 14 April 2005.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 April 2005.




                       MARTHA J. EVANS
                       Panel Chair