RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-03830
      INDEX CODE:  111.02
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX			COUNSEL: NONE

								HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

He would like to enroll in the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB).

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He signed up for the Veterans Education Assistance Program 
(VEAP) in 1984; however, the money was never deducted from his 
pay.  He was denied MGIB benefits because he was told he had not 
signed up for the VEAP.  

In support of his application, the applicant provides copies of 
DD Form 2057, Contributory Educational Assistance Program - 
Statement of Understanding, and DD Form 2266, Montgomery GI Bill 
Act of 1984.  

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

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The Military Personnel Database indicates the applicant is 
currently serving on active duty in the grade of captain (Capt) 
(O-3) with an effective date and date of rank of 2 March 2005.  
He has prior enlisted military service time from 10 August 1984 
through 1 March 2001.  He currently has a Total Active Federal 
Military Service Date of 10 August 1984 and a Total Active 
Federal Commissioned Service Date of 2 March 2001.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, 
extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained 
in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air 
Force at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________
_



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  DPSIT 
states the applicant attended a Basic Military Training (BMT) 
VEAP briefing (as evidenced by the DD From 2057) which included 
statements from the Military Training Instructor (MTI) that 
signing the DD Form 2057 was a confirmation of the briefing and 
to enroll, individuals must go to the local Accounting and 
Finance Office to initiate a monthly allotment.  The VEAP was 
also discussed in the base newspaper, education newsletters, and 
other publicity outlets.  The applicant, as an airman in 1984, 
would have also noticed his Leave and Earnings Statements (LES) 
never included a VEAP allotment.  

DPSIT states they find no indication the Air Force erred through 
not informing the applicant of the program or its enrollment 
requirements.  On the contrary, program information was on a 
regular basis.  The absence of the VEAP allotment on an LES 
would certainly indicate to the applicant that he was not a 
participant.  There is no record of him initiating an allotment 
or making a lump sum payment toward the VEAP.  Granting the 
applicant’s request will violate Title 38 United States Code, 
Chapters 30 and 32.  In addition, granting his request would not 
guarantee the Department of Veterans Affairs will award VEAP or 
MGIB benefits since the applicant did not establish a VEAP 
account before 1 March 1987.  

The DPSIT evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He was told at his first base that he did not sign up for the 
VEAP.  Unlike today, members did not have access to their 
records.  When you were told something from a Noncommissioned 
Officer, you didn’t question them.  He was not told that signing 
the DD Form 2057 did not sign him up for the VEAP.  The form 
does not state this.  There were no VEAP briefings at his first 
duty station.  His VEAP briefing at BMT consisted of an MTI 
putting apiece of paper in front of him and saying “sign it if 
you want it.”  He was told he never signed up for the VEAP when 
he noticed the deductions were not coming out of his pay.  When 
he went to Officer Training School, he was told he still could 
not sign up because he was declined in 1984.  

He is sure the Air Force advisory writer wants to believe that 
this program begged you to participate; however, this was not 
the case.  Having served for 23 years and having spent thousands 
of dollars on his education, he simply asks for something he 
should have had all along.  

The applicant’s rebuttal 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  We note the 
applicant’s assertion that he enrolled in the VEAP; however, the 
Defense Finance and Accounting Office was unable to confirm the 
applicant ever enrolled in the VEAP by initiating an allotment 
for contributions to the VEAP.  We note he provided a copy of 
his DD Form 2057, Part II, indicating he voluntarily elected to 
participate in the VEAP; however, this form does not 
automatically enroll the member.  Since he was never enrolled in 
the VEAP, he was never eligible to convert VEAP to MGIB.  Based 
on the aforementioned, 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.  
Accordingly, the applicant’s request 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 this application 
in Executive Session on 20 March 2008, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603:

			XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
			XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member
			XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member



The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-03830:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Nov 07, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 13 Dec 07. 
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Feb 08.
	Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, not dated.




                                   XXXXXXXXXXXXX
                                   Panel Chair