| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Charles Gainor | Member | |
| Mr. Joe R Schroeder | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That her report of separation (DD Form 214) be corrected to reflect that she did contribute to the Post-Vietnam Era Veteran’s Educational Assistance Program (VEAP).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that she converted her VEAP to the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) upon her retirement and that she paid all of the premiums necessary to do so. In support of her application she submits copies of the checks she paid, a copy of the cash collection voucher she received in return, and copies of the documents submitted to complete the conversion. She also states that she was informed that the paperwork would be forwarded to the appropriate agency to correct her DD Form 214; however, to date it has not been accomplished.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
She enlisted on 3 March 1981 for training as a veterinary food inspection specialist. She remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments and was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 August 1992.
On 20 March 2001 she submitted a MGIB enrollment application (DD Form 2366) to convert her VEAP to the MGIB. The application was authenticated on the same date. She paid a premium of $2,700.00 to the Defense Military Pay Office at Fort Sam Houston, Texas and received a cash collection voucher for enrollment in the MGIB on 26 March 2001.
On 27 March 2001 she submitted an Application for Refund of Educational Contributions under the VEAP for the purpose of converting to the MGIB.
The applicant was honorably released from active duty on 31 March 2001 and was transferred to the Retired List effective 1 April 2001. She had served 20 years and 28 days of total active service and her DD Form 214 indicates “NO” in item 15a (Member contributed to Post-Vietnam Era VEAP).
In the processing of this case a staff member of the Board contacted education officials at the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) to ascertain how individuals provide proof of their conversion from the VEAP to the MGIB, in the absence of information on the DD Form 214 to indicate such entitlements. Officials at the PERSCOM informed the staff member of the Board that individuals were informed at the time of the conversion that they were to keep a copy of the DD Form 2366 to present to Department of Veterans Administration (DVA) officials as proof of enrollment.
Army Regulation 635-5 provides instructions for the preparation of the DD Form 214. It provides, in pertinent part, that if a soldier contributed to VEAP and did not get money back, a “YES” entry will be made. For those who enlisted before 1984, contributed to VEAP and received their money back, mark a “NO” entry. For any soldier who enlisted after 1985, mark “NO”.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. 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 this requirement.
2. The applicant cashed in her entitlement to VEAP benefits and converted to the MGIB. Accordingly, her DD Form 214 was properly prepared to reflect a “NO” entry at the time of her separation.
3. In order for the applicant to receive her benefits under the MGIB, she simply has to submit the same documents she has submitted to this Board, to DVA officials to establish her entitlements to benefits under that program.
4. 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
__jrs ____ ____cg__ ___ls ___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001057772 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/10/10 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | 110.0000/CORR 214 |
| 2. 1018 | 103.0100/ED BENEFITS |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077598C070215
In that rebuttal she states that a memorandum prompted her to start an MGIB account, and submits a notification of a document titled “VEAP to MGIB Bill Conversion Open Season.” In that document it was stated that to be eligible for the conversion, a soldier had to be a VEAP participant on 9 October 1996. VEAP-era service members who never opened a VEAP account have no educational benefits as a veteran. If the applicant had proven that she had opened a VEAP account by making a deposit prior...
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110018541
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show she contributed to the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB). With respect to an entry regarding the MGIB on the DD Form 214, there is no provision in the regulation that governs the DD Form 214 to annotate an entry regarding the MGIB on this form.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00268
However, his record contains a DD Form 2366, MGIB Act of 1984, electing conversion from the VEAP to MGIB, dated 28 Aug 01. _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. CHARLES E. BENNETT Panel Chair MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR) SUBJECT: AFBCMR Application of...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03796
Should the Board provide relief, they recommend the applicant only be allowed to enroll in VEAP. Congress opened two windows of opportunity for VEAP participants to convert their benefits to the MGIB in 1996 through 1997 and in 2001. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or an injustice; that the application was denied without a personal...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2005-00420
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was not informed of the opportunity to convert from the Veterans Educational Assistance Program (VEAP) to the MGIB. On 1 March 2005, AFPC/DPPAT requested applicant provided evidence that supports an error or injustice in notification of her eligibility for the conversion from the VEAP to the MGIB. Congress opened two windows of opportunity for VEAP participants to convert their benefits to the...
CG | BCMR | Education Benefits | 2003-149
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. • a copy of his Allotment Worksheet dated April 24, 2001, requesting a monthly deduction of $180.00 from his base pay and total deduction of $2,700.00 for his MGIB account; In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted the following: • a copy of his form DD 2366 dated April 24, 2001, with his signature in block 3(a),...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00340
While assigned to USMTM, he never received any information or was required to sign any notification of acceptance/denial informing him that Congress had approved a new window for VEAP conversion (7 March 2001 through 31 October 2001). No one from the Education office informed them of the VEAP conversion. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, the Board is not persuaded relief should be granted.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064494C070421
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that his request to convert from the VEAP to the MGIB was denied by the US Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM). Records available to the PERSCOM indicated that the applicant did not serve on continuous active duty during the above time period. Public Law 106-419 authorizes participants in the VEAP who have continuously served on active duty since 9 October 1996 through at least 1 April 2000, to convert to the MGIB program.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000427C070206
The applicant requests that her 2001 separation document be corrected to reflect that she participated in the VEAP (Veteran's Educational Assistance Program), that she is entitled to a second award of the National Defense Service Medal and any other awards authorized for active duty Soldiers. The evidence also confirms that the applicant was on active duty on 11 September 2001 as is therefore entitled to a second award of the National Defense Service Medal. As a result, the Board...