| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | |
| Mr. William D. Powers | Member |
2. The applicant requests reconsideration of his previous application to convert his enrollment in the Veterans Educational Assistance Program (VEAP) to the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB).
3. The applicant states, in effect, that he is being unjustly denied the opportunity to convert his enrollment in the VEAP to the MGIB, a benefit that he would have been afforded had he not been seriously injured in the line of duty and subsequently placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) during the time prescribed as the eligibility window.
4. The Memorandum of Consideration (MOC) of the Board’s 24 January 2002 review of the case (AR2001064494) is incorporated herein by reference as if wholly set forth.
5. The applicant’s submission is new evidence and/or argument that requires Board consideration.
6. He was commissioned as a United States Army second lieutenant on 20 December 1983 and entered active duty on 26 January 1984. He was promoted to the rank of major in the Regular Army on 1 August 1995.
7. On 30 November 1995, while running as part of his physical training, he was hit by a car and suffered extensive injuries. As a result of his injuries, he was placed on the TDRL effective 3 December 1995, while still admitted to the hospital.
8. On 1 August 1998, after serving 33 months on the TDRL, he was determined to be fit for duty and was ordered to active duty.
9. Public Law 106-419 (Veterans Benefits and Health Care Improvement Act of 2000) authorizes participants in the VEAP who have continuously served on active duty since 9 October 1996 through 1 April 2000, to convert to the MGIB Program. The law provided a 1-year enrollment period and requires monthly pay reductions to cover program costs. The established deadline for conversion from the VEAP to the MGIB was no later than 31 October 2001. The Bill also provided eligible members who had separated since 1 April 2000, before the Bill was passed an opportunity to convert to the MGIB with a buy in cost.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Although the applicant’s request was properly denied in accordance with the strict interpretation of the law, which required individuals to be serving continuously on active duty during the period of 9 October 1996 to 1 April 2000, the Board is convinced, after reviewing his records and considering his new argument, that as a matter of equity and justice, he should be afforded the opportunity to convert his VEAP to the MGIB.
2. The Board agrees that had he not been seriously injured and transferred to the TDRL, he would have been afforded the opportunity to do so had he remained on active duty. Inasmuch as there is no indication that he would have left active duty voluntarily prior to attaining eligibility and since he did return to active duty after being released from the TDRL, the Board finds that he should be granted an exception to policy to convert from the VEAP to the MGIB, provided he does so within 90 days of notification from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS).
3. While the law is very specific that he had to be on active duty during the period in question, the Board believes that this is a situation that was either not considered or was not addressed, at the time Congress passed the law. In any event, Congress does not have a history of knowingly passing legislation that intentionally denies a soldier an improved benefit simply because they were hurt while on active duty and could not take advantage of the benefit. The circumstances in his case are exceptional and compassion is warranted in this case.
4. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, correcting the applicant’s records as recommended below would correct an error or rectify an injustice.
RECOMMENDATION:
That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned is authorized, as an exception to policy, to convert his VEAP account to the MGIB, provided he does so within 90 days of notification by the DFAS.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
_Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr._
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
| CASE ID | AR2002075211 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/12/19 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 1018 | 103.0100/ED BENEFITS |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 01975-03
Reference (c) offered MGIB Program enrollment to active duty members with money in a VEAP account on 9 October 1996 (date of enactment). As stated above, references (c) and (d) provided opportunities to "VEAP participants" not 'VEAP-era members. could convert VEAP eligibility to states he was never afforded the he learned of a period of time when was not d. Granting the petitioner's request will not guarantee the Department of Veterans Affairs will award VEAP or MGIB Program benefits since...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 04694-06
Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. Per reference (d), an individual who was a VEAP participant on or before 9 October 1996 and served continuously from that date through at least 1 April 2000 was allowed an opportunity to convert from VEAP to the MGIB Program. For veterans and members like de Wh entered during VEAP era and were not eligible for MGIB...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09111-07
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by NPC memo 1780 PERS-352G of 26 Nov 07, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, a majority of the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Reference (c) offered the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) Program enrollment to active duty members with money in a VEAP account on 9 October 1996 (date of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 04703-03
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by PERS memorandum 1780 PERS-604 of 1 July 2003, a copy of which is attached. Only those members who were eligible to convert to the MGIB Program were notified of the opportunity. Records indicate letter was mailed transfer date from that UIC was 15 August 2001, which means the letter should have reached his command long before he detached.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 06434-03
Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. Following enactment of reference (c), Navy attempted widest dissemination of the opportunity for eligible personnel to convert to the MGIB Program. Other notification was provided in ample time for members who didn't receive a letter to contact PERS-604 about their eligibility before the legislated deadline.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10208-06
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by NPC memo 1780 Pers 352G of 10 Jan 07, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, a majority of the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 04755-03
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 July 2003. Reference (c) provided an opportunity for active duty VEAP participants to enroll in the Montgomery GI ill (MGIB) Program provided they were on active duty and had contributions in a VEAP account on 9 October 1996 (date of enactment). ~eview of his record revealed -was eligible for conversion under reference (c) because he did not a VEAP participant,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00644-06
Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.Sincerely,W. For veterans and members like who entered during VEAP era and were not eligible for MGIB Program enrollment, we would not expect to find a CI Bill program document in their service record. If the member didn’t elect to enroll in VEAP initially, they had a second opportunity during the VEAP open enrollment...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03525
Additionally, he was activated post 9-11 from December 2001 to December 2002 and was not offered participation in the MGIB, nor was he briefed as to any other available benefits like the “CH 1607.” Lastly, when he was hired as an Active/Guard Reserve (AGR) on 1 February 2003, he was not offered the chance to participate in the MGIB program. He visited the base education office and they had no information on the conversion option to the MGIB program. After a thorough review of the evidence...