RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01891
            INDEX CODE:  100.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  14 DECEMBER 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be given an opportunity to  now  sign  up  for  the  Veterans’  Education
Assistance Program (VEAP) and subsequent Montgomery  GI  Bill  Act  of  1984
(MGIB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He entered the Air Force on 9 Oct 83 as a Judge Advocate.   Judge  Advocates
attend The Judge Advocate General’s School (TJAGS) and do not go to  Officer
Training School (OTS).  TJAGS  involved  no  formal  AF  in-processing,  but
rather was a career field orientation and preparatory program.  He  was  not
properly counseled  on  the  benefits  and  ramifications  of  accepting  or
declining the MGIB.

His in-processing was “haphazard at best”  and  he  was  never  informed  or
offered the opportunity  to  exercise  his  Veterans’  Education  Assistance
Program (VEAP) rights.

He is willing to contribute the maximum  funds  to  catch-up  for  the  lost
years to fully participate in the program.

In support of his request, applicant provided a  counseling  memo  from  his
base education office.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade  of  Colonel.
His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is  9  Oct  83.   He
has a voluntary retirement date of 30 Sep 07.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAT recommends denial.  Approval of this  request  will  violate  the
law.  The Department of Veterans Affairs and Defense Finance and  Accounting
Service records show the applicant never initiated a VEAP account by  making
an initial deposit and was, therefore, ineligible to participate in VEAP  or
either conversion window.  The government utilized all available methods  to
ensure applicant was offered the opportunity to  participate  by  opening  a
VEAP account.

VEAP was enacted by Congress to provide a voluntary  education  benefit  for
Armed Services personnel entering active duty between 1 Jan 77  and  30  Jun
85.  The applicant entered on 1 Oct 83.

Air Force guidance required all 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 PCS move.  Information  was  also
provided on leave and earning statements (LES),  at  commander’s  calls,  in
daily bulletins, base newspapers, personal letters, and on  demand  at  base
education  offices.   The  Air  Force  conducted  an  aggressive   publicity
campaign and held mass briefings during 1985-87  to  inform  nonparticipants
of VEAP’s termination, and that the last date to enroll was 31 Mar 87.   The
above listed methods were used to  contact  individuals  of  the  enrollment
deadline.  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  1996-97,
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.

DPPAT found no evidence that the applicant was unaware of the program.   The
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.

The complete evaluation, with attachments is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He was commissioned  a  first  lieutenant  through  the  Direct  Appointment
Program (DAP).  As a DAP officer he did  not  go  through  Officer  Training
School (OTS).  At his first  assignment  he  did  not  receive  the  initial
indoctrination or formal Air Force in-processing.  He was never informed  of
his educational benefits.

The Air Force opinion neither included nor referenced  any  specific  record
or records to show that he, in fact, received notice  of  his  VEAP  rights.
Instead,  the  OPR’s  argument  amounts  to  nothing  more  than  the   thin
presumption that he must have been made aware  of  his  VEAP  rights.   This
argument not only rings hollow, but is contrary to the  way  the  Air  Force
regularly administers its various benefits.

Clearly, the Government’s argument is contrary to the manner in which  other
military benefits are administered.  SGLI,  TRICARE,  SBP,  and  many  other
benefits are too  important  to  deny  based  on  the  equivocal  nature  of
nonparticipation.  The OPR correctly points out  that  he  failed  to  avail
himself of the windows of opportunity that existed in  1996-1997  and  2001,
however, those opportunities required  past  VEAP  participation.   The  OPR
clouds the fact that he was never informed of his initial  VEAP  eligibility
during the period 9 Oct 83 until 30 Jun 85 or in the subsequent  phase  that
ended on 31 Mar 87.

Where is the evidence to show that he knowingly and voluntarily waived  this
important benefit?  Surely a system of records was created to archive  these
many and varied forms  of  notification?   In  the  absence  of  unequivocal
evidence, equity favors granting him the benefit  of  the  doubt  given  his
nontraditional path of officer accession.

The one defining place where this information should have been  systemically
been imparted – accession training  –  did  not  occur  in  his  case.   The
current OTS website specifically alerts inbound students of  the  “Important
Decisions You Will Have To Make” and the very first listed  benefit  is  the
Montgomery GI Bill.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

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 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.  We  do  not
find the evidence submitted by the applicant sufficient  to  determine  that
he was treated differently than other similarly  situated  service  members.
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-
01891 in Executive Session on 4 October 2007, under the  provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

      Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
      Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
      Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member

The following documentary evidence  pertaining  to  Docket  Number  BC-2007-
01891 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Jun 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAT, dated 1 Aug 07.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Aug 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Sep 07, w/atch.




                                             LAURENCE M. GRONER
                                             Panel Chair