RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03525
            INDEX CODE:  128.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO



_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be given the opportunity to convert from  the  Veteran’s  Education
Assistance Program (VEAP) to the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) program.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During the latter part of his active duty career he was never  offered
the option of converting from VEAP  to  MGIB.   Additionally,  he  was
activated post 9-11 from December 2001 to December 2002  and  was  not
offered participation in the MGIB, nor was he briefed as to any  other
available benefits like the “CH 1607.”  Lastly, when he was  hired  as
an Active/Guard Reserve (AGR) on 1 February 2003, he was  not  offered
the chance to participate in the MGIB program.

In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided an email trail.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was appointed in the Regular Air Force on 16 December  1982.
He completed Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) and began  service  as
an Instructor Pilot in September 1993.  He was progressively  promoted
to the grade of lieutenant colonel with an effective and date of  rank
(DOR) of 1 February 2003.  He is  currently  serving  in  the  Reserve
grade of lieutenant colonel with the TNANG and  has  approximately  22
years of service.

_________________________________________________________________




AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1POF recommends denial.  A1POF, after review,  could  not  verify
the information provided by the applicant.  The Airlift Wing Retention
office of the Tennessee  Air  National  Guard  (TNANG)  unit  followed
regulatory guidance on the alleged dates referenced by  the  applicant
in his application.  He was not offered, nor briefed on the MGIB-AD or
the MGIB-SR programs because he was not authorized to enroll in either
of those education programs.  He was on  active  duty  from  September
1982 to 7 May 2000.  Service members entering active duty on or  after
1 January 1977, and before 1 July 1985, were eligible to enroll in the
VEAP.  The applicant enrolled  in  and  contributed  to  the  program.
During his active duty career, he was offered opportunities to convert
to the MGIB-AD program during 9 October 1996 through  8  October  1997
and again from 1 April 2000 through October 2001.  During the  1 April
2000 through October 2001 open enrollment period he  requested  he  be
disenrolled from the VEAP and refunded his  contribution  through  the
Department of Veteran’s Affairs.  He did not elect to  participate  in
nor contribute to the MGIB program.  This was publicized  by  the  Air
Force in many ways including on members’ leave and earnings statements
(LES’s).  Through investigation, he was not formally  briefed  on  the
MGIB-AD or MGIB-SR programs because he was not  authorized  enrollment
in these educational programs upon his appointment into the TNANG.  He
is however, eligible for the tuition assistance program because of his
AGR status via Title 32.

A1POF’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant totally disagrees  with  the  A1POF  advisory  opinion.   He
thought he made his request perfectly clear  he  wanted  to  re-enroll
into the VEAP or whatever follow-on program is offered as a result  of
his post 9-11 unit activation for 12+ months in support  of  Operation
Enduring Freedom  (OEF).   His  original  application  to  the  AFBCMR
contained an attached email from his Wing Retention  office  admitting
he was never offered nor briefed on any educational benefits  afforded
him due to his activation and participation  in  OEF.   The  fact  is,
other members of the unit only found out by mistake  from  talking  to
other activated unit members at other squadrons outside the  state  of
Tennessee.  His Military Personnel Flight (MPF) chief was  unaware  of
this benefit and any other educational benefits for activated officers
when asked in late 2002.  During the period he was supposedly  offered
opportunities to convert to the MGIB from VEAP via statements  on  the
bottom of his LES, he was stationed at Osan Air base in  South  Korea.
He visited the base education office and they had  no  information  on
the conversion option to the MGIB program.  Their advice was  to  wait
until his Permanent Change of Station (PCS) to Andrews AFB.  Andrews’s
personnel also had no information on this  conversion  option  either.
Had he been presented with the option to convert, he would have.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review  of  the
evidence  of  record  and  the  applicant's  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that his uncorroborated assertion he was never  offered  the
opportunity to convert from the VEAP to the MGIB program  sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale  provided  by  the  Air  National
Guard.  During his career he had several opportunities to convert from
VEAP to the MGIB and at one point he terminated his  participation  in
VEAP and did not elect to  participate  or  contribute  to  the  MGIB.
However, he is eligible for tuition assistance programs as a result of
his Title 32 Active Guard and  Reserve  (AGR)  status.  Therefore,  we
agree with the opinion and recommendation of the  Air  National  Guard
office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed  as
the basis for our decision that the applicant has  failed  to  sustain
his  burden  of  having  suffered  either  an  error   or   injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of persuasive 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-03525 in Executive Session on 1 August 2006, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Panel Chair
      Mr. Elwood C. Lewis, III, Member
      Ms. Donna D. Jonkoff, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Oct 05, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Letter, NGB/A1POF, dated 20 Jun 06.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 23 Jun 06.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, undated.




                                   JOHN B. HENNESSEY
                                   Panel Chair