RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01839
INDEX CODE: 100.00
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 18 December 2007
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to show that he elected to participate in the
Veteran’s Education Assistance Program (VEAP), contributed $2,700.00 in the
program, and converted his VEAP benefits to Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB)
benefits in 1997.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
An error occurred in the processing of his VEAP participation request.
He voluntarily elected to participate in VEAP on 8 January 1985 and signed
a statement of understanding to that effect, indicating that he would
contribute $40.00 per month into the program. He attempted to convert his
VEAP benefits to MGIB benefits in 1997, and was advised that he was not a
VEAP participant. He contacted the Defense Finance and Accounting System
(DFAS) to check deduction records; however, no deductions were made.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of the Contributory
Education Assistance Program Statement of Understanding, DD Form 2057,
dated 8 January 1985.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on
27 December 1984 and was progressively promoted to the grade of master
sergeant. During his in-processing at Lackland AFB, TX, on 8 January 1985,
he completed Section II of Contributory Education Assistance Program
Statement of Understanding, DD Form 2057, indicating that he chose to
voluntarily participate in the VEAP program by contributing from his
military pay a sum of $40.00 per months for a minimum of 12 consecutive
months.
VEAP was enacted by Congress to provide voluntary education benefits for
Armed Services personnel entering active duty between 1 January 1977 and 30
June 1985 and offered a maximum $8,100.00 benefit to participants. The
MGIB was enacted and became effective on 1 July 1985.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPAT recommends the application be denied and states, in part, the
applicant chose not to participate in VEAP by not making an initial deposit
and did not qualify for conversion to the MGIB. Department of Veterans
Affairs (DVA) and DFAS records indicate he never initiated a VEAP account
by making an initial deposit. The government utilized all available
methods to ensure applicant was offered the opportunity to participate in
VEAP by opening a VEAP account. Air Force policy and procedures concerning
VEAP were more than adequate and provided equal opportunity for all VEAP-
era individuals to make an informed enrollment decision. The Air Force is
not responsible for a personal decision made relative to a voluntary
program, especially when that program was well known and regularly briefed
to all eligible personnel. Even if all monies were later withdrawn, he
would have been able to participate in an open enrollment authorized by
Congress. Although the applicant’s long and distinguished career and the
frustration of not having post-service education benefits based on
nonparticipation in VEAP is recognized, the eligibility requirements for
post-service benefits are established by public law and should be upheld.
The AFPC/DPPAT evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/JA recommends the application be denied and states, in part, the
applicant had approximately two years to make VEAP contributions. He never
did so and was never enrolled in the program. Applicant’s contention that
he only learned that no deductions were made over 12 years later is
inexplicable. If he believed the DD Form 2057 would complete his
enrollment, he should have known otherwise when a few months passed with no
money being deducted from his pay. Such an oversight is neither an error
nor an injustice, but rather the result of the applicant’s failure to make
a contribution. Thousands of airmen properly enrolled in VEAP and such a
response would indicate enrollment requirements
were provided to airmen. Further, Congress opened windows of opportunity
for VEAP participates to convert their benefits to the more lucrative MGIB.
The AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit D.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Complete copies of the evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 25
August 2006, for review and comment, within 30 days. However, 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 error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree
with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary
responsibility and adopt their 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.
________________________________________________________________
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-2006-01839
in Executive Session on 16 October 2006 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Panel Chair
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
Ms. Rita S. Looney, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Jun 06.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPAT, dated 11 Jul 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 18 Aug 06.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Aug 06.
MICHAEL J. MAGLIO
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00826
Although he indicated that he elected to participate in the program via Part II of the DD Form 2057, the applicant never initiated an allotment to contribute. As such, he was never enrolled in the program. ________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01719
There is no DD Form 2057, Contributory Educational Assistance Program Statement of Understanding or DD Form 2366, Montgomery GI Bill Act of 1984 (MGIB) on file. The VEAP was enacted by Congress to provide education benefits for individuals entering active duty between 1 Jan 77 and 30 Jun 85. The Air Force is not responsible for a personal decision made relative to a voluntary program when that program was well-known and regularly briefed to all eligible personnel.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-04010
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-04010 INDEX CODE: 100.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be allowed to contribute a lump sum of $2,700 to the Veterans Education Assistance Program (VEAP), his VEAP account reflect activity beginning in 1982, and he be granted an opportunity to rollover from VEAP to the Montgomery GI...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00175
However, the form stated he could enroll in the program at any time during his service on active duty. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to his VEAP, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPAT recommends the application be denied. The applicant did not make a timely request nor provide evidence of government error or injustice.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00340
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). No one from the Education office informed them of the VEAP conversion. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, the Board is not persuaded relief should be granted.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01012
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01012 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected as indicated below: 1. On 19 Jan 82, the applicant completed the DD Form 2057, which informed her of criteria for participation in the VEAP. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2005-00420
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was not informed of the opportunity to convert from the Veterans Educational Assistance Program (VEAP) to the MGIB. On 1 March 2005, AFPC/DPPAT requested applicant provided evidence that supports an error or injustice in notification of her eligibility for the conversion from the VEAP to the MGIB. Congress opened two windows of opportunity for VEAP participants to convert their benefits to the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077598C070215
In that rebuttal she states that a memorandum prompted her to start an MGIB account, and submits a notification of a document titled “VEAP to MGIB Bill Conversion Open Season.” In that document it was stated that to be eligible for the conversion, a soldier had to be a VEAP participant on 9 October 1996. VEAP-era service members who never opened a VEAP account have no educational benefits as a veteran. If the applicant had proven that she had opened a VEAP account by making a deposit prior...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02642
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). While the applicant did not convert his VEAP benefit to MGIB during the Oct 96-97 window, he was eligible...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03796
Should the Board provide relief, they recommend the applicant only be allowed to enroll in VEAP. Congress opened two windows of opportunity for VEAP participants to convert their benefits to the MGIB in 1996 through 1997 and in 2001. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or an injustice; that the application was denied without a personal...