RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            26 May 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20040005403


      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.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Melvin H. Meyer               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Seema E. Salter               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Susan A. Powers               |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that he be paid the $30,000 Army College Fund
(ACF) kicker.

2.  The applicant states that it was his understanding upon enlistment that
he would receive an ACF kicker amount of $30,000 in addition to his
Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) payout.

3.  The applicant provides his DA Form 3286-66 (Statement of Understanding
United States Army Incentive Enlistment Program).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Delayed Entry Program on 30 October 1997.
 He was scheduled to enlist in the Regular Army by 14 August 1998.

2.  The applicant's DA Form 3286-66, paragraph 1a states that he was
enlisting, in addition to the U. S. Army Training Enlistment Program, for
the "US Army College Fund $30,000."  Paragraph 3 states that, if his
incentive in paragraph 1a was the ACF, he would be awarded the amounts
indicated below as they apply to the term for which he was enlisting:  2
years – up to $8,000; 3 years – up to $12,000; and 4 years – up to $14,000.


3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 August 1998 for 6
years.

4.  U. S. Army Recruiting Command (USAREC) message 98-080 dated
12 November 1998 increased the total amounts of the ACF (to $40,000 for a
   4-year enlistment) effective 12 November 1998.  This message stated, in
part, "The amounts reflected above are the total combined amounts of the
MGIB and ACF authorized as of 12 Nov 98."

5.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was provided by the
Education Incentives and Counseling Branch, U. S. Army Human Resources
Command (USAHRC).  That office noted that since 1 April 1993 the dollar
amounts reflected on a Soldier's enlistment contract, DA Form 3286-66, have
combined MGIB and ACF benefits.  It noted that the DA Form 3286-66 does not
clarify that information and is misleading to the member entering active
duty.  When the applicant entered active duty on 13 August 1998, the
veteran's rate for basic MGIB benefits was $15,834.60 for a 3-year or more
term of service obligation.  That amount is included in the dollar amount
reflected on his contract. That office recommended that, if the applicant's
request is granted, that the computation of any payment be based on the
information provided in his paperwork.  The total is $15,834.60.  That
office also recommended that any authorized compensation be sent directly
to the applicant.

6.  A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for
comment or rebuttal.

7.  In a letter to his Congressman responding to the advisory opinion, the
applicant stated that when he enlisted he signed with a promise of MGIB
benefits in the amount of $15,834.60 and an ACF of $30,000 which was to be
added to the final balance of his benefits payout upon separation.  The
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) told him he would receive the current
MGIB rate of $35,460.00 and $24,165.40 for his ACF benefits.  That is
contrary to what he was promised upon signing his contract, when he was
told he would receive the current GI Bill rate AND (emphasis in the
original) an additional $30,000 of ACF benefits.  The DVA told him he
should be happy that the MGIB benefits increased from $15,000 to $35,000
but the problem is he signed his contract expecting an ACF benefit of
$30,000 and he is not happy that he is being shorted $5,834.60.

8.  An advisory opinion was also obtained from the Incentives and Budget
Branch, Enlisted Accessions Division, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff,
G-1.  That office believed that the enlistment contract language for the
combination of the GI Bill benefit and the ACF incentive was misleading at
the time but also believed the concept had been explained to the applicant
upon his enlistment.  The law specifies that the ACF may only be utilized
in conjunction with the MGIB. The total dollar amount on the contract at
that time reflected the combined values of the GI Bill and the ACF.  The
enlistment contract has since been modified, and they agree with the
advisory opinion provided by the Education Incentives and Counseling
Branch, U. S. Army Human Resources Command.

9.  A copy of this advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for
comment or rebuttal.  He did not respond within the given time frame.

10.  Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment
Program), Table 9-4 explains the ACF.  It states that applicants for
enlistment will be advised of the following:  The ACF provides additional
educational assistance in addition to that earned under the GI Bill.  The
money earned is deposited in the Soldier's DVA account.  Normally, the
funds will be dispersed to the participant in 36 equal monthly installments
while the person is enrolled in an approved program of education.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's DA Form 3286-66, paragraph 1a stated that he was
enlisting, in addition to the U. S. Army Training Enlistment Program, for
the "US Army College Fund $30,000."  This paragraph sounds like he would
receive $30,000 for the ACF in addition to whatever he would be entitled to
under the MGIB.

2.  Paragraph 3 of the applicant's DA Form 3286-66 stated that, if his
incentive in paragraph 1a was the ACF, he would be awarded up to $14,000
for his (greater-than-4-year) enlistment.  This paragraph sounds like he
would receive only $14,000 in addition to whatever he would be entitled to
under the MGIB.

3.  To add further confusion, Army Regulation 601-210, Table 9-4 explains
the ACF and states that applicants for enlistment will be advised that the
ACF provides additional educational assistance in addition to that earned
under the MGIB.  The regulation did not clarify that the amount reflected
was to be the total combined amount of the MGIB and ACF.  It appears this
fact was not clarified until USAREC message 98-080 dated 12 November 1998
which stated, in part, "The amounts reflected above are the total combined
amounts of the MGIB and ACF authorized as of 12 Nov 98."

4.  The above lends credence to the applicant's contention that his
recruiting officials told him he would receive the current MGIB rate and an
additional $30,000 of ACF benefits.  However, as he stated in his response
to his Congressman, in any case the maximum amount he expected to receive
would have been $45,834.60 (his MGIB benefits at the time he enlisted plus
$30,000 in ACF benefits).

5.  It appears the USAHRC advisory opinion meant that the applicant should
be paid $15,834.60 in addition to the educational benefits he is currently
entitled to.  In fact, MGIB benefits had increased by the time he separated
and he is entitled to $35,460.00 in MGIB benefits.  The DVA informed the
applicant that he would receive $35,460.00 in MGIB benefits plus $24,165.40
for his ACF benefits.  It appears he will receive $59,625.40 in educational
benefits, approximately $15,000 more than he expected at the time he
enlisted.  Since he was expecting to receive a total of only $45,834.60, it
appears the Government has more than met its obligation to him even with
the alleged error on his DA Form 3286-66.

6.  If the DVA erred in informing the applicant that he was due $24,165.40
in ACF benefits and in fact he is due a lesser amount in ACF benefits (so
that the total of his MGIB and ACF benefits is less than $45,834.60), the
applicant may apply to the Board for reconsideration concerning payment of
the difference.
BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__mhm___  __ses___  __sap___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.




            __Melvin H. Meyer_____
                    CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040005403                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050526                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |103.01                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]