RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                        DOCKET  NUMBER:   BC-2007-
00246
                                             INDEX CODE:  100.00

                                             COUNSEL:  NONE
                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO



MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  25 JULY 2008


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) election on 20 Mar 96 be  changed  to
eligible.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When counseled on the MGIB at Officer Training  School  (OTS),  she
was informed  that  electing  the  GI  Bill  was  not  advised  for
personnel who have a degree.  Additionally, she  was  briefed  that
the GI Bill could not be used until after separation.  She  is  now
told you can  use  the  GI  Bill  in  conjunction  with  Transition
Assistance Program (TAP) benefits.  She elected to  separate  under
Voluntary Separation Pay (VSP) Force Shaping based on the Reduction
in Force (RIF) announcement.  She would  like  the  opportunity  to
elect the GI Bill as  she  would  have  been  allowed  if  she  was
involuntarily separated under Force Shaping.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving on  active  duty  in  the  grade  of
Major.  Her date of separation under the VSP is 28 Sep 07.

On 20 Mar 96, applicant signed a DD Form 2366, Montgomery  GI  Bill
Act  of  1984  (MGIB),  to  not  participate  in  the   MGIB,   and
acknowledging her understanding that she will not be able to enroll
at a later date.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAT  reviewed  the  application   and   recommends   denial.
Overlooking the fact that the declination of the  MGIB  took  place
over 10 years ago, Congress has allowed only one “open  enrollment”
for those who declined MGIB participation (Title 38, United  States
Code (U.S.C.), Chapter 30, Section 3018).  The participation period
was from 1 Dec 88 – 30 Jun 89.  Currently, there are no  provisions
under 38 U.S.C., Chapter 30, that allows an individual  to  reverse
their decision once they have  declined  MGIB  participation  other
than those who are involuntarily separated.

The applicant elected  to  voluntarily  separate  recognizing  that
reversing her decision declining the MGIB was not an  option.   Had
she elected to meet the Reduction in Force  Board  for  involuntary
separation selection, the reversal of the  MGIB  declination  would
have been an option made available to her if she was  not  selected
for retention on active duty.

The FY 07 President’s budget request  directed  an  Air  Force  end
strength reduction of some 40,000 personnel by FY11  by  maximizing
voluntary separation  authorities.   The  Deputy  Chief  of  Staff,
Manpower and Personnel, released  an  FY07  Force  Shaping  message
outlining the voluntary separation pay (VSP) incentives which  pays
a lump sum payment to officers who voluntarily separate from active
duty.   The  opportunity  to  participate  or  reverse  a  previous
declination  to  participate  in  MGIB,  if  previously  considered
ineligible, is not authorized by the SecAF  for  those  individuals
who elect to separate voluntarily.

The MGIB provides benefits for a variety of education and  training
programs.  The law stipulates that all  MGIB-eligible  individuals,
who do not make an election  to  decline  MGIB  participation,  are
entitled to basic education assistance under the referenced chapter
and shall have their basic pay reduced by  $100  for  each  of  the
first 12 months that  the  individual  is  entitled  to  such  pay.
Disenrollment is done by signing a DD Form 2366 (Montgomery GI Bill
Act of 1984 (MGIB)).

Even though the applicant claims the discovery of the injustice  on
12 Nov 06, she purports  that  the  briefing  she  received  during
Officer Training School (OTS),  20  Mar  96,  made  her  decide  to
decline the MGIB.  To this assertion, she provides no documentation
to support her claim that it was a government error.

The applicant’s application merits denial based on the  Defense  of
Laches.  The applicant’s unreasonable delay regarding a matter back
to 20 Mar 96 greatly  complicates  the  ability  to  determine  the
merits of the applicant’s position.

The complete DPPAT evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 13 Apr 07 for review and comment within 30  days.   To  date,  a
response has not been received.


___________________________________________________________________

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.

___________________________________________________________________

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-
2007-00246  in  Executive  Session  on  15  May  2007,  under   the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Panel Chair
      Mr. Don H. Kendrick, Member
      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member

The following documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  Docket  Number
BC-2007-00246 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Jan 07.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAT, dated 21 Mar 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Apr 07.





                                             MICHAEL V. BARBINO
                                             Panel Chair