| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. George D. Paxson | Member | |
| Mr. Charles Gainor | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That she be authorized $50,000 in Army College Fund (ACF) benefits.
APPLICANT STATES: The ACF was increased to $50,000 on 12 November 1998 for a four-year enlistment. Since she enlisted on 16 November 1998 for five years, she should be given the higher ACF amount.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
She enlisted in the Army Delayed Entry Program (DEP) on 14 October 1998. In conjunction with her enlistment, she opted for the ACF enlistment incentive. In all the documents pertaining to the ACF, the amount $30,000 was entered and initialed by the applicant. In one document, her recruiter lined out $40,000 and entered in $30,000
She enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 November 1998 for 5 years in pay grade E-4. She is currently serving on active duty in pay grade E-5.
In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM). The PERSCOM stated that while the applicant contracted for the $30,000 ACF, since she enlisted four days after the ACF for her military occupational specialty (MOS) was increased to $40,000, the PERSCOM has updated their database to show the applicant is entitled to a $40,000 ACF. The PERSCOM stated that the applicant’s MOS did not qualify for the higher $50,000 ACF. The applicant was provided a copy of this advisory opinion and given an opportunity to respond. No response was received from the applicant.
The ACF is an incentive program which was available to Regular Army enlistees who participated in the Montgomery GI Bill. In addition to the monthly monetary educational benefits given to soldiers who participated in the MGIB, the Army also provided a “kicker” in the form of the ACF, which was a set amount of money which was determined by the length of an enlistment and the MOS chosen.
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 is correct in that the ACF had increased to a maximum of $50,000 prior to her enlistment in the Regular Army.
2. However, the applicant’s MOS was not on the list of those skills authorized the maximum ACF amount of $40,000 when she enlisted in the DEP. Her MOS was authorized the lesser amount of $30,000. In the same manner, when the ACF was increased to a maximum of $50,000, her MOS was only authorized the lesser amount of $40,000. As such, the PERSCOM could only increase the applicant’s ACF entitlement from $30,000 to $40,000.
3. The applicant enlisted for the $30,000 ACF. As such, that is all she was entitled to receive. However, the PERSCOM authorized her the $40,000 ACF as a matter of equity. It is the opinion of the Board that the PERSCOM has more than corrected any injustice that may have existed in this case, and that no further action by the Board is required.
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
___cg____ ___gdp _ ___jhl___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001063816 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020425 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 107.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066586C070402
The PERSCOM stated that the USAREC’s response to the applicant’s member of Congress was incorrect, that while the maximum amount of the ACF increased to $50,000 prior to his enlistment in the Regular Army, his MOS was not one which qualified for the higher ACF amount. The applicant’s father also details how his son’s recruiter told his school about the amount of money he was going to receive for his enlistment, and submits a copy of the documents his recruiter sent to his school and a copy...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040005403C070208
The applicant's DA Form 3286-66, paragraph 1a states that he was enlisting, in addition to the U. S. Army Training Enlistment Program, for the "US Army College Fund $30,000." The applicant's DA Form 3286-66, paragraph 1a stated that he was enlisting, in addition to the U. S. Army Training Enlistment Program, for the "US Army College Fund $30,000." The DVA informed the applicant that he would receive $35,460.00 in MGIB benefits plus $24,165.40 for his ACF benefits.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012690
The applicant enrolled in the MGIB on 13 June 2000, as was required for eligibility of the ACF incentive. She also stated that the applicant's contract reflects $50,000, which included $19,296.00, which was the basic rate of the MGIB when the applicant entered active duty on 11 June 2000, and the remainder $30,704.00 was her ACF incentive. The evidence of record confirms the applicant enlisted in June 2000, and there is insufficient evidence to show she was not advised that the $50,000...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070003745C071029
The applicant's DA Form 3286-66 stated she was enlisting, in addition to another enlistment incentive, for the ACF for $40,000. The above correction will allow the Board to pay the applicant an additional ACF payment up to $19,286.00 or $536.00 per month in 36 monthly installments, for the time she was/is enrolled in an approved program of education. As a result, the Board recommends that Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by amending her DA Form...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070001297
The applicant states that his 4-year enlistment contract provided for a $30,000 ACF in addition to his Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefit, but his records in the Army Education Office show his combined benefit to be $30,000. The applicants DA Form 3286-66 (US Army Incentive Enlistment Program), paragraph 1a states that he was enlisting for, in addition to the United States Army Training Enlistment Program, the U. S. Army College Fund. It was further stated that the applicant's contract...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060017817
Fields Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests, in effect, that her enlistment contract be honored as written, and receive full payment of the Army College Fund (ACF) in the amount of $40,000. The applicant enlisted in May 2002.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060002110C071108
Dale E. DeBruler | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant provides his DA Form 3286-66 (Statement of Understanding United States Army Incentive Enlistment Program); DA Form 3286-59 (Statement of Enlistment, United States Army Enlistment Program), and his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. There is insufficient evidence to show he was not advised that the $40,000.00...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000510
The applicant requests that his enlistment contract be honored as written, and that he receive a full payment of the Army College Fund (ACF) in the amount of $40,000. It is acknowledged that nowhere in his contract does it state the ACF amount includes the MGIB. There is insufficient evidence to show he was advised that the $40,000 listed as his ACF benefit was the total combined amount of the MGIB and the ACF.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012447
His DA Form 3286-66 states that he was enlisting for the U. S. Army Station/ Command/Unit/Area Enlistment Program, a $4,000.00 U. S. Army Cash Bonus, and the U. S. Army College Fund in the amount of $50,000.00. The applicant's DA Form 3286-66 stated he was enlisting, in addition to other enlistment incentives, for the ACF at $50,000. There is insufficient evidence to show he was not advised that the $50,000 listed as his ACF benefit was the total combined amount of the MGIB and the ACF.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120007821
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his record to show a valid contract for a $40,000 Army College Fund (ACF) kicker and payment of ACF education benefits. The available evidence partially supports the applicant's request for correction of his record to show a valid contract for a $40,000 ACF kicker and payment of this benefit. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by preparing a DA Form 3286-66...