RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        8 February 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060002658


      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 she be paid the $30,000 Army
College Fund (ACF) kicker.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that her enlistment contract states
she was to receive the $30,000 ACF in addition to her Montgomery GI Bill
(MGIB) payout.

3.  The applicant provides her DA Form 3286-66 (Statement of Understanding
United States Army Incentive Enlistment Program); her DD Form 214
(Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty); and an email from
the Department of Veterans Affairs.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 1 June 2001.  The application submitted in this case is dated
13 February 2006.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Delayed Entry Program on 8 November 1996.
 Her DA Form 3286-66, paragraph 1a states that she was enlisting for, in
addition to the U. S. Army Training Enlistment Program, the U. S. Army
College Fund.  Paragraph 3 states that, if her incentive in paragraph 1a
was the ACF, she would be awarded the amount of $30,000 for a 4-year
enlistment.  She enrolled in the MGIB on 8 November 1996, as required for
eligibility of the ACF incentive.

4.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 January 1997 for 4
years.

5.  On 1 June 2001, the applicant was honorably released from active duty
upon the completion of her required active service.

6.  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 2 January 1997, the veteran's rate for
basic MGIB benefits was $15,403.32 for a 4-year term of service obligation.
 Therefore, the ACF portion of her combined benefits was $14,596.68 which
equates to $405.46 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.

7.  A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for
comment or rebuttal.  On 26 August 2006, the applicant concurred with the
advisory opinion.

8.  In a prior 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.

9.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

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

2.  It is acknowledged that nowhere in her 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 her recruiting
officials) there is insufficient evidence to show she was not advised that
the $30,000 listed as her ACF benefit was the total combined amount of the
MGIB and the ACF.

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

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 1 June 2001; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
31 May 2004.   The applicant did not file within the 3-year statute of
limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or evidence to
show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to
timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__jcr    __  __dkh___  ___rdg __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  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.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




                            ______________________
                                      CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060002658                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |YYYYMMDD                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)          |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |112.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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