RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        8 February 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050016988


      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. Jeffrey C. Redmann            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. David K. Haasenritter         |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Ronald D. Gant                |     |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, in effect, that he be paid the $26,500 Army
College Fund (ACF) kicker.

2.  The applicant states his enlistment contract states he was to receive
the $26,500 ACF in addition to his Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) payout.  The
contract does not clearly state that the Montgomery G.I. Bill and the ACF
added together equaled the $26,500.  Throughout his enlistment he was under
a false impression, given him by a member who represented the Army.  Now he
attends the University of Wisconsin – Green Bay.  He took out a loan to do
so because he was depending on receiving funds that apparently do not
exist.  He is receiving a substantially lower amount, which might force him
to drop out of college and find a low-paying job in order to support
himself with basic needs.

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 19 April 2002.
His DA Form 3286-66, paragraph 1a states that he was enlisting for, in
addition to other incentives, the U. S. Army College Fund.  Paragraph 3
states that, if his incentive in paragraph 1a was the ACF, he would be
awarded the amount of $26,500 for a 2-year enlistment.  He enrolled in the
MGIB on 19 April 2002, as required for eligibility of the ACF incentive.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 August 2002 for 2
years.

3.  On 14 August 2004, the applicant was honorably released from active
duty upon the completion of his required active service.

4.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was provided by the
Education Incentives 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 15 August 2002, the veteran's rate for
basic MGIB benefits was $23,400.00 for a 2-year or more term of service
obligation.  Therefore, the ACF portion of his combined benefits was
$3,100.00, which equates to $86.11 per month for up to 36 months worth of
benefits.  Many Soldiers entering active duty were erroneously led to
believe they would receive the MGIB rate plus the dollar amount as
indicated on the enlistment contract.  They recommended that, if the
applicant's request is granted, the computation of any payment be based on
the information provided in his paperwork.  They also recommended that any
authorized compensation be sent directly to the applicant.

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

6.  In a previous, similar, case, the Education Incentives Branch, USAHRC
confirmed that the ACF is a fixed amount based on the month and year the
member entered active duty.

7.  Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment
Program), Table 9-4 of the version in effect at the time, explained the
ACF.  It stated that applicants for enlistment would be advised of the
following:  The ACF provided additional educational assistance in addition
to that earned under the GI Bill.  The money earned would be deposited in
the Soldier's Department of Veterans Affairs account.  Normally, the funds
would be disbursed to the participant in 36 equal monthly installments
while the person was enrolled in an approved program of education.

8.  U. S. Army Recruiting Command (USAREC) message 98-080 dated
12 November 1998 increased the total amounts of the ACF effective
       12 November 1998.  This message stated, in part, "No attempt will be
made to describe or provide applicants a breakdown of the MONTGOMERY GI
BILL AND ARMY COLLEGE FUND amounts.  The amounts reflected above are the
total combined amounts of the MGIB and ACF authorized as of 12 Nov 98."

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions have been carefully considered.

2.  It is acknowledged that nowhere in his contract does it state the ACF
amount includes the MGIB.  However, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary (such as sworn statements or affidavits from his recruiting
officials) administrative regularity regarding the regulatory requirement
for applicants for enlistment to be properly advised of the ACF is
presumed.

3.  Army Regulation 601-210, Table 9-4 explains the ACF and states
applicants for enlistment will be advised the ACF provides additional
educational assistance in addition to that earned under the MGIB.  USAREC
message 98-080 dated    12 November 1998 clarified that the amount
reflected was to be the total combined amount of the MGIB and the ACF.  The
applicant enlisted in June 2000.  There is insufficient evidence to show he
was not advised that the $26,500 listed as his ACF benefit was the total
combined amount of the MGIB and the ACF.

4.  Regrettably, there is insufficient evidence which would warrant
granting the relief requested.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__jcr___  __dkh___  __rdg___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that 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.




                                  __Jeffrey C. Redmann__
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050016988                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070208                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |112.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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