RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00499
            INDEX CODE:  100.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  15 AUG 06


_________________________________________________________________

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 misinformed about his eligibility for conversion  to  the  MGIB.   He
indicates personnel at the Education Office informed  him  that  he  had  no
money in  his  VEAP  account;  therefore,  ineligible  for  conversion.   He
further states he  has  always  been  interested  in  higher  education  and
considers it one of the more  useful  benefits  for  those  who  serve.   He
believes the Education Office was confused by the 1996 and 2001  differences
in the MGIB conversion.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 30 November 1979 the applicant enlisted in the  Regular  Air  Force.   He
continued to reenlist, contracting his last enlistment on 10 July  2003  for
a period of four years.

On 17 July 2001 the applicant  signed  a  VEAP-MGIB  Conversion  Participant
memo indicating he was undecided but acknowledged he had  until  31  October
2001 to make his decision.  A copy of the signed memo was  provided  to  the
applicant.

_________________________________________________________________






AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAT recommended denial  indicating  the  applicant  did  not  execute
election for conversion from VEAP to MGIB within the  provisions  of  Public
Law (PL) 106-419.  He contends he was misinformed about his eligibility  for
conversion.  He specifically states he was told, since he had  no  money  in
his VEAP account, he was ineligible for conversion.  This was  true  of  the
1996 conversation, but not the 2001 conversion.

The applicant was stationed at Luke AFB during the conversion  period.   The
applicant appears on the list of eligibles for  conversion  from  VEAP/MGIB.
On 10 May 2001, he was sent an e-mail from the education  center,  informing
him he was eligible for conversion to the MGIB and inviting him to attend  a
briefing.  The tracking sheet for  the  e-mail  shows  it  was  successfully
delivered on 10 May 2001.  Included in the email  was  a  letter,  outlining
the basic components of the two programs and indicating that  he  had  until
31 October 2001 to make an election.

On 17 July 2001 the applicant  signed  a  VEAP-MGIB  Conversion  Participant
memo indicating he was undecided but acknowledged he had  until  31  October
2001 to make his decision.  A copy of the signed memo was  provided  to  the
applicant.

PL 106-419 did not give the services authority  to  mandate  that  eligibles
attend a briefing or make an election.  It only required the  Air  Force  to
provide  notice  of  opportunity  to  those  eligible  to  convert  and  the
procedures for conversion if they  so  elected.   Personnel  from  Luke  AFB
(MSS/DPE) took on this enormous challenge to notify eligibles  and  do  what
the law required.  The applicant was e-mailed and records maintained.

Their office requested a statement from the  Education  Services  Center  at
Luke AFB on the applicant’s claim.  The Chief, Education Services,  provided
an e-mail statement and the documents used to  counsel  those  eligible  for
the VEAP/MGIB  conversion.   A  review  of  these  documents  show  accurate
information was distributed and briefed and they  do  not  concur  with  the
allegations of the applicant.

The applicant was clearly advised of his eligibility to convert to the  MGIB
and does not offer evidence in support of the claim as required by  AFI  36-
2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR),  and  AFP
36-2607, Applicant’s Guide to the AFBCMR.  On  the  contrary,  the  evidence
provided  in  this  recommendation  clearly  indicates  the  applicant   was
properly notified  of  eligibility,  briefed  correctly  on  the  conversion
process, deadlines for the election, and provided the  opportunity  to  make
an election prior to 31 October 2001.




Approving the applicant’s  request  will  violate  38  U.S.C.,  Chapter  30,
Section 30189C.  The applicant is still enrolled in VEAP.   Conversion  from
VEAP/MGIB is a voluntary decision which  must  be  made  within  a  specific
time.  If the Board is inclined to grant relief, they  have  no  options  to
recommend.

The evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and indicated he arrived at  Luke  AFB
in 2000 from two consecutive overseas tours.   The  1996  decision  allowing
VEAP personnel with money in their account to convert was already in  place.
 He had no money in his VEAP account in 1996 which likely accounts  for  the
fact that the Education Center contacted him about the  conversion  process.
He was not aware that the MGIB had been opened for this class of  personnel.


When contacted by the Education Office in early 2001, he  was  informed  the
MGIB conversion had been opened, but he had to have money  in  the  account.
He asked if Congress had  any  plans  to  open  the  program  for  all  VEAP
personnel, and was told it was under consideration, but no  action  had  yet
been taken.  He did not attend the VEAP/MGIB briefings since he was told  he
was ineligible.

In July 2001 the Education Office at Luke  AFB  asked  him  to  initial  his
intention to accept or decline conversion into the MGIB.  Having  last  been
told that he could not convert he realized he could not initial  the  choice
to convert, but still not wanting to close  out  any  opportunity  for  this
conversion  he  initialed  in  the  undecided   choice   rather   than   the
declination.  He asked why he was being asked to initial the  form  when  he
did not have the option to convert.  He was told that it was  just  part  of
the bureaucratic process and everyone had to  make  a  choice.   He  guessed
that the only potential use for this information was  as  a  survey  of  the
remaining non-eligible personnel (the Air Force wanted to see who  would  be
interested if the program was offered at a later date).

He further indicated personnel from AFPC/DPPAT were not present at Luke  AFB
to validate statements made to some military members.  In  a  perfect  world
all personnel at Luke AFB should have been  briefed  that  the  program  was
open to all former VEAP participants.  One or more agents used  by  the  Air
Force to disseminate this information failed to do  so  accurately.   Though
most personnel received accurate information, it is now clear that  not  all
were afforded the same opportunity.

The applicant’s response with attachment, 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 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.   While  the  applicant
indicates he was miscounseled regarding conversion to the MGIB, he  has  not
provided persuasive evidence to substantiate his claim.   To  the  contrary,
it appears  the  applicant  was  properly  notified  and  he  was  undecided
concerning  converting  to  the  MGIB.   The  Board  would  be  willing   to
reconsider the applicant’s appeal if he  provided  the  responses  from  all
individuals he e-mailed on 10 March 2005 indicating  he  was  surveying  all
who were addressed in the e-mail from  the  Education  Office  at  Luke  AFB
regarding if they were told they could convert to  MGIB  only  if  they  had
money in  their  existing  VEAP  account.   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 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 this application in  Executive
Session on 5 April 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                  Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member
                  Mrs. Barbara R. Murray, Member






The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-
2005-00499 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 February 2005, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAT, dated 28 February 2005.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 March 2005.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 30 march 2005, w/atch.





                                THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                Chair