| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Walter Avery, Jr. | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Terry L. Placek | Member | |
| Mr. Robert L. Duecaster | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that item 15a (Member contributed to post-Vietnam era veteran’s educational assistance program [VEAP]) of his DD Form 214, separation document, be changed from No to Yes. The correction will allow him to enroll in the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) program, as of the date he enlisted.
APPLICANT STATES: He believes the restoring of his eligibility for MGIB benefits would cure an injustice. He signed up for the MGIB when he entered the Delayed Entry Program on 29 September 1997. On 24 June 1998, he reported for processing into the active Army. The following day, 25 June, he had a reaction to immunizations shots that left him distracted and disoriented. Years later as he was preparing to separate from the Army he discovered for the first time that during his initial inprocessing he rejected the MGIB education benefits. He has no memory of signing the form and never had any intention of rejecting MGIB benefits. He can only surmise that his disorientation due to the reactions to the immunizations must have contributed to his erroneously signing the disenrollment form. It should be obvious to the Board, as it is to him now, that his chain of command failed its responsibilities by allowing him to choose disenrollment and making an irrevocable decision to reject benefits that only a fool would refuse. At a minimum, the sergeant should have counseled him on the effect of signing the declination line, or verified that he was mentally alert enough to make knowledgeable decisions.
He does not expect something for nothing and is aware that $1200.00 should have been deducted from his pay during his first year of service. He did know this; therefore, he did not think it strange that nothing was deducted from his pay. He offers to now pay the $1200.00.
In support of his request, he submits an extract from his medical records that indicates that he received immunizations on 25 June 1998. A statement of the form reports no reactions to the immunizations were observed in the applicant for 20 minutes after taking the shots.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 June 1998, trained as an infantryman and achieved pay grade E-4. He served until his honorable separation on 23 June 2002.
On 29 September 1997, he signed a DA Form 2366 (MGIB) enrolling in the MGIB program. On 26 June 1998, he signed the same form disenrolling from the MGIB program. Above his signature is the statement: “I do not desire to participate in the MGIB. I understand that I WILL NOT be able to enroll at a later date.” The form also informs the applicant that unless he disenrolls from the MGIB, his basic pay will be reduced $100.00 for the first 12 months of active service.
In the processing of this case, U.S. Total Army Personnel Command provided an advisory opinion. They noted the applicant was asking for educational benefits under the Veterans Education Assistance Program (VEAP). A program that terminated 30 June 1985 and prior to the applicant’s 24 June 1998 entry into the Army, therefore his DD Form 214 is correctly annotated. They concluded the applicant declined MGIB enrollment, a decision irrevocable under Title 38,
U.S.C. 3011. The advisory was provided to the applicant with no response.
The MGIB, as outlined in Title 38, United States Code, chapter 30, section 1411(b) (change to section 3011), provides for soldiers who first 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 nonrefundable. The program is administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). DVA regulations specify that if a soldier is separated prior to the soldier’s normal ETS, the separation must be for hardship, medical disability or for the convenience of the government. Also, he or she must serve at least 20 months for a 2 year enlistment, and at least 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, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. The applicant contends he does not remember signing the MGIB form, disenrolling from the program because he was disoriented due to immunizations shots taken. The Board cannot conclude from the evidence available the applicant’s mental capacity several years ago. The immunization record does reflect that he received shots the day before but it also indicates that the applicant was observed by medical personal for 20 minutes for reaction to the immunizations and no reactions were observed. The applicant by his signature disenrolled from the MGIB program and his monthly pay was not reduced by $100.00, as required for enrollment. The applicant’s statement that he was
drowsy the day he disenrolled and that he was unaware of the $100.00 monthly deduction is not persuasive. He states that his chain of command failed by allowing him to sign a statement of disenrollment. The fact that there is a disenrollment option indicates that those that developed the law that governs the MGIB program believed that disenrollment was a logical choice for some. Therefore his chain of command were not obligated to stop him from exercising his legal right to disenroll and not obligate himself to a monthly $100.00 deduction. The applicant has not submitted sufficient evidence or persuasive argument to overcome that evidence that he voluntarily disenrolled from the MGIB program.
2. As for the applicant’s request to change item 15a of his DD Form 214 and enrollment in the VEAP program. The Board concludes the applicant mistakenly thought that enrollment in VEAP would also enroll him in the MGIB program. As pointed out in the advisory opinion the VEAP terminated prior to the applicant’s enlistment. His DD Form 214, item 15a; is correct and requires no correction.
3. 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
__tlp ____ ___rd ___ ___rvo __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002077424 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030424 |
| 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. | 128.14 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070004981
The applicant states that his DD Form 214 does not show that he contributed to Post-Vietnam Era Veterans Educational Assistance Program. The DD Form 214 in use at the time of the applicants discharge from active duty is not designed to show an individuals contribution to the MGIB. In view of the foregoing, the applicants DD Form 214, Item 15a (Member Contributed to Post-Vietnam Era Veterans Educational Assistance Program) is properly marked No. Therefore, considering all the...
CG | BCMR | Education Benefits | 2008-140
CGPC stated that the applicant’s DD 2366 was completed erroneously to indicate that the applicant was not eligible for MGIB benefits and yet was signed by a certifying official. of the Pay Manual, “[e]ligible members are automatically enrolled [in MGIB] unless they elect not to receive educational benefits within the first 2 weeks of active duty.” Therefore, because the applicant actually was eligible for MGIB benefits and because he did not disenroll by signing the DD 2366 in block 5, his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008529
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his discharge document to show he contributed to the Veterans Educational Assistance Program (VEAP). Therefore, considering all the evidence and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request for correction of Item 15a of his DD Form 214. While the Board does not dispute the fact that the applicant was told that his discharge document contained an error...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080013508
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests correction of his DD Forms 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show that he contributed to the Post-Vietnam Era Veteran's Educational Assistance Program (VEAP). The applicant contends that he contributed to the Post-Vietnam Era VEAP and that his DD Forms 214 should show his contributions.
CG | BCMR | Education Benefits | 2005-016
This final decision, dated November 17, 2005, is signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his records to make him eligible for educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB)1 by correcting his form DD Form 2366 to show that he elected to accept the benefits. Based on the review of your official Coast Guard records, you did complete a DD Form 2366 on 10 April 2001, electing not to participate in the MGIB. Within two...
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100015764
b. Paragraph 2-4 (Completing the DD Form 214) contains item-by-item instructions for completing the DD Form 214. The applicant contends that item 15a of his DD Form 214 should be corrected to show he contributed to the Veteran's Educational Assistance Act (New GI Bill) so that he will not be denied educational benefits. The evidence of record shows the applicant's DD Form 214, item 15a, is properly marked "No."
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060017509
The applicant's military service records contain a copy of a DD Form 214, with an effective date of 31 December 2003, that shows he was honorably retired from active duty after completing a total of 20 years and 19 days active service. The evidence of record shows that the applicant enrolled in the New GI Bill (i.e., the MGIB) on 3 March 1997. The DD Form 214 in use at the time of the applicants retirement from active duty is not designed to show an individuals contribution to the MGIB.
CG | BCMR | Education Benefits | 2000-054
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. This final decision, dated October 12, 2000, is signed by the three duly RELIEF REQUESTED The applicant, a seaman apprentice (SA; pay grade E-2) who served 20 months on active duty in the Coast Guard, asked the Board to correct his records so that the Coast Guard would repay him the $1,200.00 that was withheld from his pay under the Montgomery GI...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9510983C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to show that he contributed to the post-Vietnam Era Veterans Educational Assistance Program (VEAP), and that he be made eligible for VEAP benefits by crediting him with 30 months of active duty if his separation is considered for the convenience of the Government, or 36 months if it is not considered for the convenience of the Government. Actually, by the time he entered active duty...