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