RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                        DOCKET  NUMBER:   BC-2006-
00467
                                             INDEX CODE:  100.00

                                             COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:   YES




MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  13 AUGUST 2007


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her disenrollment from the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) on 24 Jul  98,
be declared void.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She did not intend  to  disenroll  from  the  MGIB.   She  was  not
properly counseled that the MGIB was  available  for  post-graduate
training.

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.

The briefings she received upon entering active duty were  far  too
short, with inadequate explanation of the potential applications to
the MGIB; the person briefing did  not  have  adequate  information
regarding  training   for   professionals   (beyond   undergraduate
training).  She was required to make a very  hasty  and  uninformed
decision.  She received no  assistance  to  remedy  this  situation
during her separation out processing.

In support of her application, applicant provided a DD  Form  2366,
Montgomery GI Bill Act of 1984 (MGIB), dated 10 Feb 06.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant served on active duty  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  from
13 Jul 98 until 29 Sep 05.

On 24 Jul 98, applicant signed a DD Form 2366, Montgomery  GI  Bill
Act of 1984 (MGIB),  to  not  participate  in  the  MGIB,  and  her
understanding that she will not be able to enroll at a later date.

The applicant was separated from active duty on 29 Sep 05,  in  the
grade of major, and honorably transferred to the Air Force Reserve.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAT reviewed the application and  recommended  denial.   The
applicant’s  request  to  reverse  her  decision  to  decline  MGIB
violates Title 38, United States Code (U.S.C.), Chapter 30.

The MGIB provides benefits for a variety of education and  training
programs.  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.  Eligible applicants  may
disenroll within two weeks of entering active duty  (Department  of
Defense Directive number  1322.16,  Subject:   Montgomery  GI  Bill
(MGIB)   Program)   after   a   detailed   lecture   on   benefits.
Disenrollment is done by signing a DD Form 2366 (Montgomery GI Bill
Act of 1984 (MGIB)).  The applicant’s DD Form 2366,  was  witnessed
by a senior officer.

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.   Applicant  submitted  no   additional
documentation to support the alleged government error.

The applicant has been affiliated with the military since 1990 as a
reservist; well over eight years before joining the active duty Air
Force.  This would have been ample time for  any  recruit  to  have
been made aware of the benefits of the MGIB based on the volume  of
information publicized by  the  Veterans  Administration  (VA)  and
other education entities.

The complete DPPAT evaluation is at Exhibit B.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant would like to clarify some facts  regarding  her  initial
decision to disenroll from the MGIB.  When she first entered active
duty in 1998, she was a part of a group made largely of  physicians
at Commissioned Officer Training.  They were given a short briefing
about the  MGIB,  with  no  discussion  of  postgraduate  physician
training (residency or fellowship training).  They were expected to
make a quick decision, and since she did not plan on  pursuing  any
of the educational  opportunities  they  discussed,  she  opted  to
disenroll.  She has always planned to pursue  further  postgraduate
medical training, and therefore is certain that she would not  have
disenrolled if there had been any suggestion at the time that  such
training would fall under the MGIB.  While applying  for  residency
training after leaving the Air Force, a  colleague  suggested  that
she might be eligible for the  MGIB.   She  inquired  with  the  VA
representative at Aviano Airbase, and  was  disappointed  to  learn
that she had no recourse.

The 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 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.  We took notice of
the applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the
case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of  the
Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its  rationale
as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the
victim of an error or injustice.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to  recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and  it  has  not
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered

___________________________________________________________________

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-2006-00467 in Executive Session on 24 August and 3 October 2006,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
      Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
      Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member



The following documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  Docket  Number
BC-2006-00467 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Feb 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAT, dated 27 Jun 06.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jul 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 26 Aug 06.




                                             MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                             Panel Chair