Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060003504C071029
Original file (20060003504C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        8 February 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060003504


      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. Hasssenritter        |     |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 $33,000 Army
College Fund (ACF) kicker.

2.  The applicant states his contract states he would receive $33,000 for
the ACF.  He took a reduced bonus amount to enroll in the ACF.  He states
that nowhere in his contract does it state that the ACF and the Montgomery
GI Bill (MGIB) are a combined value.

3.  The applicant provides his DA Form 3286-59 (Statement for Enlistment
United States Army Enlistment Program U. S. Army Delayed Enlistment
Program); his DD Form 1966/3 (Record of Military Processing – Armed Forces
of the United States); his DD Form 2366 (Montgomery GI Bill Act of 1984
(MGIB); and Military Personnel (MILPER) Message 02-042 dated 3 December
2001.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 30 January 2002, the applicant enlisted in the Delayed Entry
Program.  His DA Form 3286-59 shows he was enlisting for the U. S. Army
Training Enlistment Program, the U. S. Army Incentive Enlistment Program
(Cash Bonus $5,000), and the ACF for $33,000.  His DD Form 2366 shows he
was enrolled in the MGIB and the ACF for $33,000.

3.  On 19 March 2002, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3
years.  His DA Form 3286-66 (Statement of Understanding United States Army
Incentive Enlistment Program) states he was enlisting for the U. S. Army
Training Enlistment Program, the Seasonal Bonus (Cash Bonus $5,000), and
for the ACF. He initialed paragraph 3, which stated 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:  3 years - up
to $33,000.  His DD Form 1966/3 shows he was enlisting for the U. S. Army
Training Enlistment Program, the Seasonal Bonus (Cash Bonus $5,000), and
for the ACF $33,000.

4.  The applicant completed basic combat training and advanced individual
training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B
(Infantryman).  He completed basic airborne training.

5.  The applicant was honorably released from active duty on 18 March 2005
after completing 3 years of creditable active service.

6.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was provided by the
Chief, Education Incentives Branch, U. S. Army Human Resources Command.
That office noted that the applicant’s enlistment contract reflects
$33,000.  That included the basic rate of the MGIB.  When the applicant
entered active duty on 19 March 2002 for a 3-year enlistment, the veterans’
rate for basic MGIB benefits was $28,800 for a 3-year obligation.
Therefore, his ACF portion of his combined benefits was $4,200, which
equates to $116.67 per month for up to 36 months worth of benefits.
However, many Soldiers entering active duty erroneously were led to believe
that they will receive the MGIB rate plus the dollar amount as indicated on
the enlistment contract.  That office recommended that the computation of
any payment be based on the information provided in the applicant’s
paperwork.

7.  A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for
comment or rebuttal.  He disagreed with the advisory opinion.  He noted
that his contract stated the value of the ACF was $33,000.  That was in
addition to the MGIB, which was valued at $28,800.  He stated that he
enlisted with the clear and unmistakable understanding that he would
receive $51,800 for college after completing his enlistment.  To date, he
has not received the $51,800, nor has anyone empirically stated that he
should receive $51,800.  He states that neither has anyone provided any
documentation that states the actual, documented value of the ACF “kicker”
at the time of his enlistment.  He states that the only evidence that seems
to be available is his enlistment contract, which the advisory opinion
admitted was misleading.

8.  The applicant stated that his enlistment bonus package was reduced by
$5,000 in order to maximize his ACF incentive at the $33,000 level.  His
Military Entrance Processing Station counselor explained that he was
eligible to receive four enlistment bonuses – a seasonal bonus of $2,000
for a priority training seat; an additional seasonal bonus for enlisting in
MOS 11X in a priority training seat; a $3,000 airborne enlistment bonus;
and a $5,000 bonus for enlistment in MOS 11X.  He agreed to sign for a
reduced bonus level of $5,000 in order to get the $33,000 ACF.  That should
raise a flag as it would be ludicrous to reduce his bonuses by $5,000 in
order to get an additional $4,200.00 in education benefits.

9.  The applicant provided MILPER Message 02-042, subject:  Enlistment
Bonus (EB) Program Changes, issued on 3 December 2001.  A 3-year enlistment
in MOS 11X authorized a $5,000 bonus; however, this bonus amount was
reduced to $3,000 when combined with the ACF.  The airborne bonus was
closed and was not available for MOS 11X.  Only one seasonal bonus was
authorized. (Although there were three levels of seasonal bonuses, only one
bonus per enlistee was authorized.)  The applicant was authorized a $2,000
seasonal bonus for a total bonus of $5,000.


10.  Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment
Program), Table 9-4 of the version dated 28 February 1995 (the version in
effect at the time of the applicant's enlistment), explains the ACF.  It
states 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 Department of
Veterans' Affairs 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.

11.  U. S. Army Recruiting Command (USAREC) message 98-080 dated
 12 November 1998 increased the total amounts of the ACF (to $33,000 for a
    3-year enlistment) 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 January 2002.  There is insufficient evidence to show
he was not advised that the $33,000 listed as his ACF benefit was the total
combined amount of the MGIB and the ACF.

4.  There is no evidence to show the applicant was authorized an additional
$5,000 in bonuses that he turned down to get the ACF (i.e., there is
insufficient evidence to show that it would have been “ludicrous to reduce
his bonuses by $5,000 in order to get an additional $4,200.00 in education
benefits”).

5.  In addition, the applicant appears to be under the misimpression (when
he stated, “To date, he has not received the $51,800”) that the MGIB/ACF
benefit is a lump sum payment.  Normally, MGIB/ACF funds are disbursed to
the member in 36 equal monthly installments while enrolled in an approved
program of education.

6.  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 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                 |AR20060003504                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |YYYYMMDD                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)          |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |112.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060002927C071029

    Original file (20060002927C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Ronald D. Gant | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. When the applicant entered active duty on 9 June 2000 for a 3-year enlistment, the veteran's rate for basic MGIB benefits was $19,296.00 for a 3-year term of service obligation. There is insufficient evidence to show he was not advised that the $33,000 listed as his ACF benefit was the total combined amount of the MGIB and the ACF.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010130C071029

    Original file (20060010130C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Dale E. DeBruler | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. His DA Form 3286-66 Statement of Understanding, United States Army Incentive Enlistment Program), Paragraph 1a, states that in addition to the Training of Choice and Cash Bonus Options, he was enlisting for the U. S. Army College Fund. The evidence of record confirms the applicant enlisted in April 2002, and there is insufficient evidence to show he was not...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050003808C070206

    Original file (20050003808C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Robert L. Duecaster | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant's DA Form 3286-66, paragraph 1a states he was enlisting, in addition to the U. S. Army Station/Unit/Command/Area Enlistment Program, for the ACF. At the time the applicant enlisted, the ACF and the MGIB was a combination of the benefit (MGIB) and the incentive (ACF).

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014185

    Original file (20060014185.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Member Mr. Gerald J. Purcell Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests that his enlistment contract be honored as written, and that he receive a full payment of the Army College Fund (ACF) in the amount of $33,000. There is insufficient evidence to show he was not advised that the $33,000 listed as his ACF benefit was the total combined amount of the MGIB and the ACF.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060002857

    Original file (20060002857.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant provides: his DA Form 3286-66 (Statement of Understanding United States Army Incentive Enlistment Program); his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty); and college transcripts. 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.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060007186C071108

    Original file (20060007186C071108.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Dale E. DeBruler | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 13 October 2006, the Education Incentives Branch, USAHRC confirmed the ACF portion of the applicant's MGIB entitlement should have been reflected as $4,200.00 (or $116.67 in 36 equal installments). 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.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011563C070208

    Original file (20040011563C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Larry Olson | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant's DA Form 3286-59 (Statement of Enlistment) shows he enlisted for the U.S. Army Incentive Enlistment Program – Army College Fund for up to $33,000 and a Cash Bonus. The applicant signed a DD Form 2366 (MGIB Act of 1984) dated 3 April 2001 indicating that he was eligible for the MGIB based on his initial entry on active duty after 30 June 1985.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050015344C071029

    Original file (20050015344C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Ronald D. Gant | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant provides his initial enlistment contract and his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). 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.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060003430

    Original file (20060003430.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests, in effect, correction of her military records to allow her to receive educational benefits associated with the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) and the Army College Fund (ACF). There is insufficient evidence to show he was not advised that the $33,000 listed as his ACF benefit was the total combined amount of the MGIB and the ACF.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012690

    Original file (20060012690.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant enrolled in the MGIB on 13 June 2000, as was required for eligibility of the ACF incentive. She also stated that the applicant's contract reflects $50,000, which included $19,296.00, which was the basic rate of the MGIB when the applicant entered active duty on 11 June 2000, and the remainder $30,704.00 was her ACF incentive. The evidence of record confirms the applicant enlisted in June 2000, and there is insufficient evidence to show she was not advised that the $50,000...