RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-01601
INDEX CODE: 111.02
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to reflect he elected Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB)
benefits.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The MGIB was explained to him at a mass briefing held during military
indoctrination for Medical Services Officers (MIMSO). He was briefed that
the MGIB could be applied to graduate degrees and vocational certification
training. He was not briefed that the MGIB could be applied to post-
graduate fellowships or residency programs. This information would have
been directly applicable to an audience of recently graduated medical
officers and would have impacted his decision. He was not able to make an
informed decision because of inadequate and erroneous information he
received during his inprocessing.
In support of his application, the applicant provides two unsigned
supporting statements.
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 lieutenant colonel with an effective
date and date of rank of 1 Oct 04. He has a Total Active Federal Military
Service Date of 1 Oct 87.
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 B.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial of the applicant’s request. DPSIT states that
on 15 Oct 87, the applicant elected not to participate in the MGIB.
Congress provided an open window during 1988-89 for individuals to reverse
their disenrollment decisions. The applicant did not take advantage of
this opportunity. The unsigned letters from the two other medical officers
who also claim incomplete or erroneous information during their briefings,
attended briefings in 1992 and 2000 respectively, and would not know what
was briefed in 1987. DPSIT advises that approximately 50 percent of the 60
plus eligible medical officers remaining on active duty after entering the
service in Oct 87 accepted the MGIB. The complete DPSIT evaluation is at
Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
To the best of the applicant's recollection, the briefing he received about
the MGIB failed to discuss the ability to utilize benefits for post-
graduate fellowships, residencies, or other non-traditional degree
programs. At the time of entering the Air Force in 1987, the entry-level
degree for physical therapists was a Bachelor of Science degree; it is now
a Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT). Various universities have established
transitional DPT programs that allow practicing physical therapists with
either a Bachelor's or Master's level entry degree to obtain a DPT degree
to be on parity with newly graduating therapists. The MGIB will allow him
to pursue this route after retiring from active duty. The applicant's
complete letter, with attachment, 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 an error or injustice. We note the applicant’s assertion that
he was given erroneous information regarding the MGIB in 1987 and thereby
was not able to make a proper decision to accept or decline the MGIB.
However, we are not persuaded by the evidence presented that his decision
was made in error nor do we find persuasive evidence that he was improperly
counseled at the time of his election. Therefore, 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-2008-01601
in Executive Session on 24 July 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. B J White-Olson, Panel Chair
Mr. Garry G. Sauner, Member
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2008-
01601 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Apr 08, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 6 Jun 08.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Jun 08.
Exhibit D. Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 1 Jul 08, w/atch.
B J White-OLSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02497
His colleague had also declined the MGIB based on erroneous information he received during his in- processing. 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: HQ AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial. On 20 Jun 00, the applicant signed the DD Form 2366...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-01283
He would also have been advised of the requirements of the law that if he elected to participate in the conversion; the $2,700 was to be paid within 18 months from accepting the conversion. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and the application will only be reconsidered...
The following are documented omissions from his personnel records and Officer Selection Brief (OSB) at the time of the CY98B lieutenant colonel board: 1) Overseas Long Tour at Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany: Jan 84- Jan 87. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Reports & Queries Section, HQ AFPC/DPAPS1, states, with respect to the applicant’s duty history, that they have reviewed the applicant’s source document Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) and AF Forms...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03455
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was not properly briefed on the benefits before his decision not to participate in the MGIB in May 1987. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, it is our opinion that relief is not warranted in this case. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00675
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial noting the applicant filed an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) but was denied relief because the board was not convinced the report was inaccurate based on the evidence provided by the applicant. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00973
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: HQ AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial. DPSIT states the ECLRP is an enlistment incentive where the Air Force assists individuals by repaying a portion of their outstanding federal student loans. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 03830
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 DPSIT evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-04074
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-04074 INDEX CODE: 100.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His disenrollment from the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) of 6 Aug 85, be declared void. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He declined enrollment as a new airman in the Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-04030
In this case, although the applicant argued this was a “Self-Report”, the voting members of the CSRP, based on the evidence presented to them, determined the case was an “Admit”, and there is sufficient evidence in the file to support their findings and recommendations. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice to warrant changing the applicant’s USAFA Cadet Wing Honor Code violation to “Self-Report.” After a thorough review...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00341
The DPSIMC evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Although the advisory opinion states that he must clearly establish an error or injustice by the Air Force, he submitted evidence that shows the center right side of AF IMT 973 contains the handwritten note, “43 days leave sell,” which is initialed. The advisory opinion does not address this fact at all because the document...