| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Sherri V. Ward | Member | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That she be given the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB).
APPLICANT STATES: She was discharged 23 days prior to the 30 day rule. Her DD Form 214 shows that she only has 2 years, 5 months and 7 days active service.
In support of her request she submits documents showing that she contributed $1,200.00 towards the MGIB on 9 April 2001, and she was denied MGIB benefits on 10 September 2001 because she had not served 30 months of her enlistment.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
She enlisted in the USAR with no prior service on 24 May 1996.
She enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 April 1998 as a private first class, was promoted to specialist, and was honorably released from active duty on 7 September 2000, at her own request, due to pregnancy. She had served 2 years, 5 months and 7 days of her enlistment.
Army Regulation 635-200, Enlisted Personnel, paragraph 8-9, states that enlisted women who become pregnant must be counseled and given the option to remain on active duty or to separate from active duty. If separation is requested, a specific separation date may be requested by the pregnant soldier.
The GI Bill, 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 GI Bill and to contribute $1,200.00 during their first 12 months service, which is nonrefundable. 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 (DVA). DVA regulations specify that if a soldier is separated prior to the normal expiration of his or her term of service, the separation must be for hardship, medical disability or for the convenience of the government. Also, he or she must have served in excess of 20 months for an enlistment of less than 3 years, and in excess of 30 months for an enlistment of 3 years or more. In all cases, the soldier’s service must be considered fully honorable.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. While not contained in the applicant’s records, she was required to be counseled and given the option to remain on active duty or be released from active duty. She obviously chose to be separated, and either chose the date she was separated or didn’t indicate she had a preference in her date of separation (as soon as possible).
2. Therefore, the Army gave the applicant the choices available to a pregnant soldier by regulation, and honored her election. There is no error or injustice in that scenario.
3. While it is regrettable that the applicant was separated prior to serving sufficient time to qualify for the MGIB, that is now an issue between her and the DVA, the Department which has responsibility for administering the MGIB to veterans.
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
___jns___ ____mhm ____svw_ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002070910 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002070910 |
| 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. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010183
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant essentially states that her military records are wrong, she contributed $1,200.00 to the MGIB and she is entitled to benefits. The applicant contends that her DD Form 214 should be corrected to show that she contributed to the MGIB.
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100000286
BOARD DATE: 15 July 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100000286 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Active duty personnel participated in the Veterans' Educational Assistance Program (VEAP) if they entered active duty for the first time after 31 December 1976 and before 1 July 1985 and made a contribution prior to 1 April 1987. The Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB), as outlined in Title 38, U.S. Code, Chapter 30, provides for Soldiers who entered the service after 30 June 1985 to contribute...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082703C070215
On 7 December 1998, the applicant's commander initiated action to separate the applicant for involuntary separation due to parenthood under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-8. The applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates in block 15a that she did not contribute to the Post-Vietnam ERA Veteran’s Educational Assistance Program. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was honorably discharged on 6 January 1999, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091231C070212
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. This has been accepted as a request to show that the Army received her lump sum payment while she was still on active duty. Soldiers who did not enroll in the MGIB when they enlisted may establish eligibility for the MGIB under Public Law 101-510, Section 561, if: - They were on active duty on 9/30/90 AND separated involuntarily after 2 February 1991; - OR they were involuntarily...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001055281C070420
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080000997
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 21 February 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080000997 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. Her application, along with her DD Form 2366 dated 7 December 2007, were submitted to the Department of Veterans Affairs for consideration. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002065462C070402
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any) APPLICANT REQUESTS: That item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected to show the entry "Hardship" instead of "Pregnancy," and that she receive her education benefits. On 13 January 1992, the applicant submitted a formal personnel...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087262C070212
In response to that letter, the Human Resources Command, Alexandria Virginia, stated that the active duty for training the applicant completed as a reservist did not qualify under law for time served for the purpose of establishing benefits under the MGIB. Since the MGIB eligibility is established by law, and the Board is not empowered to violate law, the Board is unable to grant the applicant’s request as written. However, the Board could otherwise establish the applicant’s eligibility to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009864
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 March 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060009864 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The letter also stated that the applicant did not contribute the required $2,700.00 within 18 months from the date he made the election. The evidence of records show that the applicant contracted for the MGIB on 28 July...