RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-00826
                                             INDEX CODE:  100.00
                             COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  17 SEP 2008


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show he elected to participate in  the  Veterans
Educational Assistance Program (VEAP) and he be allowed to  convert  to  the
Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) Program.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should be able to enroll in VEAP because the statement  of  understanding
on the first page of the DD Form 2057 that he signed, states he  can  enroll
in the program at any time during his service  on  active  duty.   He  never
received notice regarding VEAP enrollees converting to the MGIB.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 6 October 1982, the applicant acknowledged a statement  of  understanding
via Part I of the DD Form 2057, Contributory Educational Assistance  Program
Statement of Understanding.  On 2 May 1983, he completed Part II of DD  Form
2057, indicating he voluntarily would participate in  the  VEAP  program  by
contributing $25.00 per month for a minimum of 12  consecutive  months.   He
contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on  2  May  1983,
for a term of four years, and was progressively promoted  to  the  grade  of
master sergeant.

VEAP was enacted by Congress to provide a voluntary  education  benefit  for
Armed Services personnel entering active duty between 1  January  1977,  and
30 June 1985.  The MGIB was enacted and became effective 1 July  1985.   Air
Force guidance required all VEAP eligible personnel to hear a VEAP  briefing
at accession training, upon entry to active duty, one year  thereafter,  and
at newcomer’s briefings subsequent  to  each  permanent  change  of  station
(PCS) move.  Information was also provided on Leave and Earnings  Statements
(LES), at commanders’ calls, in daily bulletins, base  newspapers,  personal
letters, and on demand at base education offices.  As required by PL  98-525
and PL 99-576, the Air Force conducted an aggressive publicity campaign  and
held mass briefings during 1985 through 1987 to inform  non-participants  of
VEAP’s termination and that the last  date  to  enroll  was  3  March  1987.
Individuals desiring to take advantage of the program were told to start  an
allotment or make an initial deposit at the  local  accounting  and  finance
office.   Congress  later  opened  two  windows  of  opportunity  for   VEAP
participants to convert their benefits to  the  more  lucrative  MGIB.   The
first, in 1996 through 1997, included VEAP  participants  with  money  in  a
VEAP account while the second, in 2001, allowed those having  money  or,  at
one time, had money in a VEAP account to convert.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAT recommends denial.  DPPAT states in part the applicant  does  not
address any efforts on his behalf to  commence  the  deductions  other  than
claiming that the individual, who  gave  the  VEAP  briefing,  said  that  a
separate visit to finance would  be  required  to  open  an  account.   Many
individuals chose not to participate until 1985  through  1987,  when  faced
with the decision to participate in VEAP or have no post  service  education
benefit.  There is no doubt  the  applicant  had  the  same  opportunity  as
everyone else to participate in VEAP.  No evidence was found to show he  was
ever  enrolled  in  VEAP  prior  to  the  program  being  terminated.    The
government utilized all available methods to ensure  applicant  was  offered
the opportunity to participate by opening  a  VEAP  account.   Even  if  all
monies  were  later  withdrawn,  the  applicant  would  have  been  able  to
participate in the open enrollment Congress authorized.   He  chose  not  to
participate in VEAP by not making an initial deposit  and  therefore,  would
not qualify for either of the MGIB conversion  windows.   Air  Force  policy
and procedures relative to 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.   In  making  a
recommendation, the Law, as currently  written  allows  only  one  decision,
denial.  (Exhibit C)

The AFPC/DPPAT evaluation is at Exhibit B.

AFPC/JA recommends denial.  JA states in part, completing  Part  II  of  the
VEAP enrollment form, only  indicated  intent  to  enroll  in  the  program.
Airmen were also required to initiate an allotment and contribute  from  $25
to $2700 no later than 1 April 1987, to actually enroll in VEAP.   VEAP  was
non-interest bearing and a member received $2 for every  $1  contributed  in
matching funds.  In addition to monthly allotments, an  active  duty  member
could also make a lump sum contribution to reach  the  maximum  contribution
allowed.  According to the DD Form  2057  and  when  the  applicant  entered
active duty, an Airman was entitled to enroll at any time during service  on
active duty.  The law was amended in 1986.  Statutory  eligibility  required
enrollment occur before 1 July 1985.

A VEAP entitlement would have been created if the  applicant  completed  the
enrollment process before 1 July 1985 and participated in  the  program  for
at least 12 consecutive months.  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.

No issue of error or injustice is presented by the applicant.   He  did  not
take the steps necessary to enroll in VEAP in accordance with the  statutory
requirement.

The AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to  the  applicant  on  8
June 2007, for review and comment within 30  days.   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 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 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-2007-00826
in Executive Session on 2 August 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
                       Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Mar 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Memo, AFPC/DPPAT, dated 25 Apr 07.
    Exhibit C.  Memo, AFPC/JA, dated 6 Jun 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Jun 07.




                                   WAYNE R. GRACIE
                                   Panel Chair