| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Stanley Kelley | Member | |
| Mr. John P. Infante | Member |
2. The applicant requests that the amount of his Army College Fund (ACF) be increased from $40,000 to $50,000.
3. The applicant states that he had been promised the $40,000 ACF when he enlisted in the Army Reserve Delayed Entry Program (DEP). However, he was later told by his recruiter that the ACF had been increased to $50,000, and he would automatically receive the higher amount. His recruiter even told his school he would be receiving the $50,000 ACF. Based on that information, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years, only to discover that his recruiter was misinformed, that he needed to renegotiate his DEP contract to receive the higher ACF amount.
4. In support of his request the applicant submits a response to a Congressional inquiry by the Army Recruiting Command (USARC). In that response it is stated that the applicant’s concerns are valid and that the applicant’s DEP contract should have been amended to change his ACF amount from $40,000 to $50,000.
5. The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the DEP on 23 June 1998. He completed the addendum for a $40,000 ACF at that time. On 2 June 1999, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years. At the time he submitted his application to the Board he was serving on active duty in pay grade E-4.
6. The ACF is an incentive program, which was available to Regular Army enlistees who participated in the MGIB. In addition to the monthly monetary educational benefits given to soldiers who participated in the Montgomery GI Bill (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. Entitlement to the ACF is contingent on the military occupational specialty (MOS) chosen by the potential enlistee.
7. The MGIB, as outlined in title 38, United States Code, chapter 30, section 1411(b), provides for soldiers who entered the service after 30 June 1985, to be automatically enrolled into the MGIB and to contribute $1,200.00 during their first 12 months service, which is non-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.
8. In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the US Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM). 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 PERSCOM recommends disapproval of the applicant’s request.
9. The applicant was furnished a copy of the PERSCOM advisory opinion and given the opportunity to respond. The applicant’s father responded for him, stating that, essentially, matters of mitigation were not addressed by the PERSCOM in its advisory opinion. These matters of mitigation include the fact that the sole reason for his son’s decision to enlist in the Army versus another Armed Force was the amount of the ACF being offered. Money for college was a primary concern for his son. If his son had known that he had to change his MOS to qualify for the higher ACF amount, he would have done so. Unfortunately, the applicant’s recruiter simply assumed that the high-skill MOS chosen by his son would qualify for the higher ACF amount, so he didn’t bother checking to insure that was the case. Because of the recruiter’s error, the option to choose another MOS, one which would qualify for the higher ACF amount, was taken from his son. 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 of a representative check which shows the total amount of money the applicant would receive in educational benefits. The applicant was presented that representative check by the recruiter at a school function. All of these documents show that the applicant would receive the $50,000 ACF.
10. The Comptroller General of the United States has ruled in similar cases that although a service member may have been misinformed about his entitlements, the Government is not liable for erroneous actions of its officers, agents, or employees in the performance of their official duties.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant was satisfied with the $40,000 ACF when he enlisted in the DEP, his MOS did not qualify for the higher ACF amount, and the Army is not bound by the erroneous information given to the applicant by his recruiter. As such, he is not entitled by law or regulation to the higher ACF amount.
2. However, the applicant’s father has raised a matter of equity, which the Board cannot ignore. That matter of equity is the inability of his son to renegotiate his DEP contract to an MOS that qualified for the higher ACF amount because of the failure of the applicant’s recruiter to realize that his MOS would not qualify for the higher ACF amount.
3. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the MOS of the individual concerned qualified for the $50,000 ACF, in this case only, as an exception to policy.
BOARD VOTE:
___sk___ ___rvo __ ____jpi __ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
__________Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.___
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2002066586 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020718 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 128.05 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063816C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant enlisted for the $30,000 ACF. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606928C070209
The applicant requests that his records be corrected to show that he enlisted for the Army College Fund (ACF). The applicants military records show he enlisted in the DEP on 15 June 1990. RECOMMENDATION: That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 November 1990 with the ACF enlistment option, as an exception to policy.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9607678C070209
When a soldier enlists for this option, a DA Form 3286-66 must be completed indicating that he has been promised the LRP, and the soldier must disenroll from the MGIB. The PERSCOM stated that no loans have been paid for the applicant under the LRP, but a note in his file shows that he had informed that office that he has loans which would qualify under the Higher Education Act of 1965, but has not as yet submitted those notes for payment. In the applicants case, that form is not present,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608788C070209
At the time of her enlistment in the Regular Army, she executed a DA Form 3286, U.S. Army Enlistment Option, in which she elected the 2-year enlistment and the training of choice enlistment options. The ACF is an incentive program which is available to certain Regular Army enlistees who participate in the MGIB. The PERSCOM stated that the ACF was available for MOS 76Y in May 1987 (the month the applicant enlisted in the DEP), but not in November 1987 (the month the applicant enlisted in...
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9607808C070209
The ACF is an incentive program which is available to certain Regular Army enlistees who participate in the MGIB. To be eligible for the ACF, the soldier must be a high school graduate, have an AFQT score of 50 or above, remain enrolled in the MGIB, and enlist for certain military occupational specialties, as determined by the Department of the Army. The PERSCOM stated that the MOS the applicant enlisted for was not qualifying for the ACF in conjunction with his 4-year term of service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9607684C070209
APPLICANT STATES: That he opted for the ACF when he enlisted, and has now been told he is not eligible to participate in that program. In support of his application he submits a copy of an addendum to his enlistment contract wherein he opted for the Montgomery G.I. The PERSCOM stated that the applicant enlisted in the DEP for an MOS which was eligible for the ACF, but changed his MOS to one which was not eligible for the ACF prior to his enlistment in the Regular Army.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060006059
The applicant requests, in effect, that he be paid the full $40,000 Army College Fund (ACF) entitlement in addition to the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefit promised him during his enlistment processing. Paragraph 32a of the DD Form 1966/3 prepared at the time states that in addition to the United States Army Training Enlistment Program and Cash Bonus, he was enlisting for an ACF incentive of $40,000, and he was enrolled in the MGIB on 23 June 2001, as required for eligibility of the ACF...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060002857
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); his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty); and college transcripts. 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 | 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.