RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        13 February 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050017437


      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             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Hubert O. Fry                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. William F. Crain              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Dale E. DeBruler              |     |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 $50,000 Army
College Fund (ACF) entitlement promised him during his enlistment
processing.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, his enlistment contract forms
confirmed he was entitled to a $50,000 ACF, and that nowhere on these forms
does it indicate that the ACF amount includes his Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB)
entitlement.  He requests that he be paid the difference.  He indicates he
is currently a full time student at Tarlenton State University, Killeen,
Texas, and that he has five dependents.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authorized statement and his enlistment
contract forms (DD Form 4/1, DA Form 3286-66, DA Form 3286-59, and DA Form
3286-67) in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Delayed Entry Program on 26 July 2000.
His
DA Form 3286-66, paragraph 1a states that he was enlisting for, in addition
to the U. S. Army Station/Command/Unit/Area Enlistment Program, 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 $50,000 for a 4-year
enlistment.  He enrolled in the MGIB on 26 July 2000, as required for
eligibility of the ACF incentive.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 August 2000 for 4
years.

3.  On 2 August 2005, 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, United States 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, and that the DA Form 3286-66 does not
clarify this information and is blatantly misleading to the member entering
active duty.  It further indicates that when the applicant entered active
duty on 3 August 2000, the veteran's rate for basic MGIB benefits was
$19,296.00 for a 4-year term of service obligation; therefore, the ACF
portion of his combined benefit was $30,704.00, which equates to $852.88
per month for 36 months.
5.  The USAHRC advisory opinion also states that many Soldiers entering
active duty are erroneously led to believe they will receive the MGIB rate
plus the ACF dollar amount indicated on the enlistment contract.  USAHRC
recommends approval of the applicant's request and that the compensation
granted be based on the information provided in his paperwork, and that any
authorized compensation be sent directly to the applicant.

6.  A copy of the USAHRC advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for
comment or rebuttal.  On 4 July 2006, the applicant concurred with the
advisory opinion.

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 MGIB.  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.  United States 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 pertinent part, that "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 were carefully considered and 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.

2.  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.
3.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant enlisted in July 2000,
and there is insufficient evidence to show he was not advised that the
$50,000 listed as his ACF benefit was the total combined amount of the MGIB
and the ACF.  Thus, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to grant the
requested relief.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___HOF _  __WFC__  __DED__  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.




                                  _____Hubert O. Fry_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050017437                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/02/13                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |2005/08/02                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |ETS                                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |Denial                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |103.0100                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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