APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, the applicant requests educational benefits under the provisions of the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB).
APPLICANT STATES: That he has not been able to obtain benefits under the MGIB because his former Reserve unit in California had him listed as an unsatisfactory participant, when in fact, he was in the New Mexico Army National Guard as a simultaneous membership program (SMP) cadet from October 1988 to May 1990.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted in the Army Reserve for 8 years on
29 October 1987. He enlisted for the student loan repayment program.
The applicant was on active duty as an enlisted soldier from 28 June 1988 to 26 August 1988, when he was released to his Reserve unit in California.
On 28 September 1988 the applicant amended his previous enlistment agreement and enlisted in the Army Reserve as a cadet for 8 years.
The applicant was appointed a second lieutenant in the Army Reserve on 11 May 1990.
The applicant was on active duty for training (ADT) from
3 June 1990 through 26 September 1990. He was released from ADT as a second lieutenant and transferred to the Army Reserve reinforcement control group.
On 1 November 1991 the applicant was transferred from the Army Reserve annual training control group to the Texas ARNG.
On 4 November 1991 the applicant agreed to serve six years in the selected Reserve of the Army National Guard or the Army Reserve, in addition to any current period of obligated selected reserve service, in order to enroll in the selected reserve educational assistance program (the new GI bill).
On 30 October 1992 the TXARNG Adjutant General notified a member of congress that the applicants benefits under the MGIB were terminated on 7 July 1989 by the Army Reserve because of unsatisfactory participation.
In a 20 April 1993 memorandum the applicants unit commander indicated that the applicant was a SMP with the 804th Maintenance Company going to school at New Mexico Military Institute from October 1988 through May 1990.
A 21 March 1994 ARNG retirement points statement shows that the applicant served in the SMP from 29 October 1987 through 10 May 1990, and that he was a unit member in the ARNG until 15 March 1994.
The applicant resigned from the Texas ARNG on 15 March 1994 under the provisions of National Guard Regulation 635-100, paragraph 5a(3) and was transferred to the Army Reserve reinforcement control group.
A 20 November 1995 advisory opinion from an official of the office of the Chief of the Army Reserve indicates that the applicant enlisted in the Army Reserve on 29 October 1987 for the student loan repayment program, and after basic training, requested to be discharged from the Army Reserve upon his enlistment in the New Mexico ARNG as an ROTC SMP cadet. He enlisted in the ARNG on 28 September 1988. There was no record that the applicant was an unsatisfactory participant while assigned to the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard as an enlisted soldier. Upon his commission in the Texas ARNG he was coded ineligible. That official recommended that the ARNG correct the data base to reflect his eligibility for the MGIB.
Informal information obtained from an official in the National Guard Bureau is that the applicant was not listed on either the National Guard or the Army Reserve data base as an unsatisfactory participant.
Army Regulation 135-7, chapter 8, gives the policy and procedures governing the educational assistance program for members of the selected reserve (Montgomery GI Bill). Paragraph 8-8 of that regulation states, in effect, that a soldiers entitlement to benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill will expire on the date he is separated or discharged from the selected reserve.
Army Regulation 140-10 prescribes policies, responsibilities, and procedures concerning the assignment of Reserve soldiers. Chapter 2 states, in pertinent part, that the Ready Reserve consists of soldier assigned to troop program units (TPUs) and to Reserve control groups. The selected reserve is composed of soldiers assigned to TPUs, the individual mobilization augmentation (IMA) control group, and to the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) control group.
Informal information obtained from an official in the Army Personnel Command at St. Louis is that a soldier may regain eligibility for educational assistance provided he reaffiliates with the selected reserve within one year. This information was confirmed by an official at the Office of the Chief of the Army Reserve, who stated that that rule was contained in DOD Instruction 1322.17.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:
1. There is no available evidence to indicate that the applicant was an unsatisfactory participant in either the Army Reserve or the Army National Guard. Nonetheless, he was not eligible for Montgomery GI Bill benefits because of his separation from the selected reserve (transfer to the reinforcement control group), in September 1990.
2. The applicant was erroneously enrolled in the Montgomery GI Bill when he transferred from an Army Reserve control group to the Texas Army National Guard in November 1971. He was not eligible for benefits because he did not rejoin the selected reserve within one year of his transfer.
3. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.
4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicants request.
DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.
BOARD VOTE:
GRANT
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
DENY APPLICATION
Karl F. Schneider
Acting Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075428C070403
That was the date he should have executed the MGIB Kicker Addendum. The MGIB Kicker is an enlistment incentive, and is required to be executed at the time of the soldier’s enlistment or, in the case of Guardsmen, extension of their enlistment. At that time he was not a member of the Select Reserve, so he was not eligible for the MGIB Kicker.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000401
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. A memorandum, subject: ETP Request for SLRP [Applicant], dated 23 August 2013, submitted by the IDARNG to the NGB stated: * the applicant contracted for the $20,000 SLRP on 18 August 2007 * he is unable to locate the signed SLRP addendum * the DA 4836 E (Oath of Extension of Enlistment or Reenlistment) is contained in his official military personnel file * he was advised to sign the ROTC Non-Scholarship Cadet Contract immediately...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014774
His SLRP contract stated he would be able to add new loans any time during the contracted period up to the fifth anniversary of the current 6-year contract, not to exceed $50,000.00. The applicant provides: * two self-authored statements * U.S. Army Cadet Command Form 203-R (Guaranteed Reserve Forces Duty Scholarship Cadet Contract Endorsement) * DA Form 4836 (Oath of Extension of Enlistment or Reenlistment), dated 27 July 2010 * NGB Form 600-7-5-R-E (ELRP Addendum), dated 27 July 2010 * DA...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070009525
The applicant provided an Air Force Service History that shows he earned 15 retirement points (membership points only) in RYE 12 December 1988. Therefore, the certificate alone is insufficient evidence to show he should be granted active duty points for attendance at airborne training. At this time there is insufficient evidence to show the applicant earned 50 retirement points, or a qualifying year, in RYE 12 December 1990.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150003309
On 29 July 1992, VAARNG published Orders 146-57 discharging him from the ARNG and assigning him to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Annual Training) effective 31 July 1992 by reason of being an unsatisfactory participant, in accordance with chapter 8 of National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management). This regulation states that a member is an unsatisfactory participant when he or she accrues nine or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills during a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015368
As a new issue, he requests the issuance of a DD Form 214 for his Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) Advanced Camp service in 1988 and that this DD Form 214 show his pay grade as E-5. Regarding the correction of his DD Form 214 for the period ending 19 May 1991 to show his pay grade as E-5, the evidence of record, as well as that provided by the applicant, does not support the granting of this request. c. As further evidence he no longer held the pay grade of E-5 after disenrollment...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010786C070208
Michael Flynn | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests, in effect, that he be granted service credit and any back pay and allowances due based on his participation in the Simultaneous Membership Program (SMP). The evidence of record shows that the applicant served in the Georgia ARNG in an SMP status from 1 October 1988 through 31 May 1990.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007178
It appears he submitted an exception to policy requesting no recoupment action be associated with his incentive termination: a. Additionally, the NGB Form 594-1 he signed clearly states his bonus will not be recouped based on contracting for the SMP. His bonus addendum stipulated that his bonus would be terminated without recoupment in the event he becomes a participant in the SMP/ROTC advanced course or receives an ROTC scholarship and has served more than 1-year of the enlisted incentive...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013607
The applicant states that his unit commander at the 414th Civil Affairs (CA) Battalion gave him an unsatisfactory participation for a drill weekend without trying to contact him. The applicant provides a self-authored supplementary letter; a DVA rating decision, undated; his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), dated 30 March 2004; a 414th Civil Affairs Battalion, memorandum, dated 3 December 2007, Subject: Letter of Instructions-Unexcused Absence; a DVA...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013256
x The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Also, there is no regulatory requirement to include a statement on the DD Form 214 which shows whether or not a Soldier contributed to the MGIB or not. Therefore, there is no basis for correcting the applicants DD Form 214 to show that he paid into the MGIB.