| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti | Analyst |
| Mr. Stanley Kelley | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Member | |
| Ms. Mae M. Bullock | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he “be entitled to the G.I. Bill.”
APPLICANT STATES: He was told by personnel at the education center at Fort Hood, Texas, his commanding officer, and a Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) instructor that if he accepted the ROTC scholarship he would still be entitled to the Montgomery G.I. Bill (MGIB).
In a letter to a U.S. Senator, the applicant explains that he was told while he was on active duty that, since he had two months of active duty as a reservist prior to his enlistment into the Regular Army, he would have the 30 months required to qualify for the MGIB. After his release from active duty and enrollment into college, he was told that the 30 months of active duty had to be consecutive. As such, he is not entitled to MGIB benefits. The applicant contends that if he had known that he required 30 consecutive months of active duty to qualify for the MGIB, he would have delayed his release from active duty.
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.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) military records show:
He enlisted in the USAR with no prior service on 29 January 1994 for the alternate training program (the reservist attends basic combat training [BCT] one summer, and attends advanced individual training [AIT] the next summer). He apparently completed BCT in 1994, and was scheduled to attend AIT on 8 June 1995.
When the applicant failed to report for AIT as ordered, he was given an uncharacterized discharge on 12 November 1995 for Entry Level Performance and Conduct.
The Board was not provided a copy of the applicant’s Regular Army military records.
The GI Bill, as outlined in Title 38, United States Code, Section 3011, provides for soldiers who entered the service after 30 June l985, 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 monthly educational benefits for 36 months. The program is administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). This law also specifies 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. It would appear that the applicant served two months of active duty while in the USAR. Unfortunately, the law which provides benefits under the MGIB specifies that the period of active service must be continuous.
2. While the applicant states that he was told he would be eligible for MGIB benefits with 28 months of continuous active service, based on the two months of prior active duty he served in the USAR, he has not submitted any documentation to substantiate his claim.
3. Also, it is unclear whether the applicant had to be separated from active duty on a specific date in order to enroll in school, and therefore establish eligibility for his ROTC scholarship.
4. 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 the MGIB by showing that he served on active duty for another two months, or by changing the reason and authority for his separation. Unfortunately, because of the reasons cited above, there is currently insufficient basis on which to recommend such corrections.
5. 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
___mmb _ ___sk __ ___rjw___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003087262 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20031106 |
| 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 | CY2004 | 2004101136C070208
The ROTC contract also provided for and he agreed that, his disenrollment would, at the option of the Army, result either in his being ordered to active duty or that he repay the amount received. In addition to the monthly monetary educational benefits given to soldiers who participated in the MGIB, the Services could also provide a “kicker” in the form of the college fund, which was a set amount of money which was determined by the length of an enlistment. In an advisory opinion, the U....
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075428C070403
That was the date he should have executed the MGIB Kicker Addendum. The MGIB Kicker is an enlistment incentive, and is required to be executed at the time of the soldier’s enlistment or, in the case of Guardsmen, extension of their enlistment. At that time he was not a member of the Select Reserve, so he was not eligible for the MGIB Kicker.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608093C070209
APPLICANT STATES: That she was told when she reenlisted while serving on active duty in the Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) program that she could not enlist for the MGIB as all individuals in the AGR program are automatically enrolled for that incentive. This regulation provides for issuing an individual who is assigned to an Army National Guard (ARNG) or USAR unit, or who is assigned to an Individual Mobilization Augmentee position, or who is on active duty in the AGR program and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013256
x The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Also, there is no regulatory requirement to include a statement on the DD Form 214 which shows whether or not a Soldier contributed to the MGIB or not. Therefore, there is no basis for correcting the applicants DD Form 214 to show that he paid into the MGIB.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00623
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 3 September 1993, the applicant signed an AF Form 1056, Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) Contract. Congress purposely made ROTC graduates ineligible for the MGIB in its effort to prevent individuals from receiving “double” benefits. She further indicates if she received scholarship monies she would have received between $6,000.00 and $12,000.00 per year.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9509602C070209
His unit clerk told him that since he had enlisted for 3 years, he could extend his enlistment for an additional 3 years and establish eligibility for the MGIB. On 1 December 1994 the applicant completed a DA Form 4836, Oath of Extension of Enlistment or Reenlistment, in which he extended his 2 November 1993 3-year enlistment for an additional 3 years. Since it was the applicants stated intent to enlist for the MGIB, it would be equitable to correct the term of service on his enlistment...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073828C070403
However, the evidence clearly establishes that he committed to his ROTC scholarship on 29 May 1980, when he agreed to attend summer active duty training, which he did attend and complete. In view of the facts of this case, the Board concurs with the findings and recommendations of the PERSCOM Chief, Officer Retirements and Separations Section, which confirms that the applicant would have been required to enter into an ROTC scholarship contract on 29 May 1980, in order to attend active duty...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00757
The contract states he would be kept in the Inactive Reserves for up to 12 months, which the Air Force exceeded. The applicant also claims a staff sergeant misinformed him at the time he signed the enlistment contract and said the “voided contract is just one example of why he should be allowed to re-enroll in the MGIB.” The ROTC enlistment contract is not void or the applicant would not have served nearly 12 years of active duty. However, after entering active duty in 1991, he opted to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110009446
Further, Cadet Command Regulation 145-1 (Army ROTC Scholarship Policy, Administrative, and Procedural Instructions) allows the PMS to request retroactive benefits if the system failed the cadet in some way. He was told his tuition was not paid because the PMS did not have the legal authority to contract retroactively and because he was not qualified to contract prior to having a medical waiver. The DODMERB timeline shows it took the applicant 9 months from the date of his initial...