APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to show that he contributed to the post-Vietnam Era Veterans’ Educational Assistance Program (VEAP), and that he be made eligible for VEAP benefits by crediting him with 30 months of active duty if his separation is considered for the convenience of the Government, or 36 months if it is not considered for the convenience of the Government.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his separation was due to his failure to meet body fat standards, which was for the convenience of the Government.  As such, he should only need 30 months of active duty to qualify for educational benefits under the VEAP.  He believes that he was separated 25 days prior to his reaching that eligibility in a deliberate attempt to deny him his educational benefits.

In support of his application he submits copies of his leave and earnings statements (LES’s) which show that he contributed to the Montgomery G.I. Bill (MGIB).

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant’s military records show:

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 August 1989, was awarded the military occupational specialty of utilities equipment repairer, and was promoted to pay grade E-3.

On 12 August 1991 the applicant was found to exceed the body fat standards and would require a weight loss of 13 pounds to be in compliance with weight standards.  He was placed in the weight control program and was weighed monthly.  He lost one pound in September 1991, gained 3 pounds in October 1991, gained 2 pounds in November 1991, and lost 1 pound in December 1991.

On 3 February 1992 he was honorably released from active duty by reason of his failure to meet body fat standards and was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Annual Training) the following day.  He had completed 2 years, 5 months and 5 days of active duty.

The DD Form 214 he was issued, block 15a, “Member contributed to Post-Vietnam Era Veterans’ Educational Assistance Program” is marked “No.”

The VEAP was established and implemented on l January l977, as a contributory education program designed to replace the Vietnam Era (pre-l977) G.I. Bill.  Any soldier entering the service between l January l977 and 30 June l985 was eligible to participate in the program.  The soldier was required to contribute between $50.00 and $75.00 (later increased to $l00.00) for a minimum of l2 months during his or her period of service.  The Army matched $2.00 for each $l.00 contributed by the soldier.  The maximum educational assistance that could be received by the soldier was $8,l00.00 for a 3-year enlistment and $7,200.00 for a 2-year enlistment.  Service must have been under honorable conditions.

The MGIB, as outlined in title 38, United States Code, chapter 30, section 3011, provides for soldiers who entered the service after 30 June l985, to be automatically enrolled into the  MGIB and to contribute $l,200.00 during their first l2 months service, which is not normally refundable.  After completion of their service obligation, he or she is entitled to receive up to $300.00 per month educational benefits for 36 months.  The program is administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

In the processing of this case an advisory opinion (COPY ATTACHED) was obtained from the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM).  The PERSCOM explained that contrary to the policy of the Department of the Army, the VA initially considered individuals who were separated for failure to meet body fat standards to have been separated at the convenience of the Government, but later changed its classification of these individuals to the category of individuals who have been separated for pre-existing medical conditions.  By law, individuals in the later category receive 1 month of MGIB benefits for every full month they serve on active duty.  That policy remained in force until October 1993, at which time the VA again changed its policy and decided that an individual who was separated for failure to meet body fat standards must complete at least 36 months of a 3-year or longer enlistment to be eligible for MGIB benefits.  The PERSCOM also stated that the applicant enlisted after the VEAP educational incentive ended, that he had participated in the MGIB, and that his DD Form properly indicates that he did not contribute to the VEAP.

Army Regulation 600-9 provides the guidance for the Army weight control program.  Paragraph 21 of that regulation states, in pertinent part, that a person who fails to lose at least three pounds a month for any two consecutive months will be considered for separation due to failure to make satisfactory progress in the program.

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, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant has apparently confused the VEAP with the MGIB.  Actually, by the time he entered active duty the VEAP had been replaced with the MGIB.

2.  The DD Form 214 in use now and then is not designed to show an individual’s contribution to the MGIB.  However, this does not mean the individual did not contribute to that program.  

3.  The applicant’s LES’s verify that he contributed to the MGIB.  Therefore, he should be entitled to limited educational benefits under that program, as determined by the VA under its laws and regulations.  

4.  In view of the preceding conclusions, the applicant’s DD Form 214, item 15a, “Member Contributed to Post-Vietnam Era Veterans’ Educational Assistance Program” is properly marked “No” and there is no reason to change it.

5.  As for crediting the applicant with additional service, the record shows that he was found to exceed the body fat standards of the Army, he was placed in the Army weight control program, and he failed to make satisfactory progress in that program.  As such, his separation was appropriate and accomplished in compliance with the applicable regulations.  In view of this regularity, there is no reason to credit him with time he did not serve.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s 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