RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  13 February 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060005839 


	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.


x

	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 $30,000 Army College Fund (ACF) entitlement promised him during his enlistment processing.   

2.  The applicant states, in effect that when he enlisted into the military he signed a Incentive Enlistment Program Form (DA Form 3286-66/67), which stated he would receive the Montgomery G.I. Bill (MGIB) and the ACF.  He states that this document specifically stated that the amount of college fund would not be less than $30,000 for a minimum of a 4-year enlistment.  He states that not only was this not in his records, but he only received a total of $14,400 at the rate of
$400 per month for 36 months.  He also states that he has fulfilled his contractual obligation and has not yet received his full contractual ACF compensation.  He further states that he is now requesting that his records be updated and that he be reimbursed the additional ACF entitlement $15,600 he is due.  

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of his application:  Separation Document (DD Form 214); MGIB Act of 1984 (DA Form 2366);
United States Army Incentive Enlistment Program (DA Form 3286-66/67); and United States Army Delayed Enlistment Program (DA Form 3286-59).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice that occurred on 30 July 2002.  The application submitted in this case is dated 
13 April 2006.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Delayed Entry Program on 10 July 1997.  Paragraph 1a of the DA Form 3286-66  prepared at the time states that he was enlisting for the U. S. Army Station/Command/Unit/Area Enlistment Program with the ACF incentive.  Paragraph 3 states that his ACF incentive would be awarded in the amount of $30,000 for a 4-year enlistment.  The applicant enrolled in the MGIB on 4 August 1997, as was required for eligibility of the ACF incentive.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 31 July 1997 for 5 years and entered active duty.  On 30 July 2002, he was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) upon the completion of his required active service and he was transferred to the United States Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group Reinforcement.  


4.  During the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Education Incentives Branch, United States Army Human Resources Command (USAHRC).  This official stated that during the period 1 April 1993 through 30 September 2004, the dollar amounts reflected on a Soldier's enlistment contract, DA Form 3286-66, have combined MGIB and ACF benefits; however, the DA Form 3286-66 does not clarify this information and is blatantly misleading to the member entering active duty.  She also stated that the applicant's contract reflects $30,000, which included $15,403.32, which was the basic rate of the MGIB when the applicant entered active duty on 31 July 1997, and the remainder $14,596.68 was his ACF incentive.  To determine the monthly rate for his ACF incentive, $14,596.68 is divided by 36 months of benefits and therefore equates to $405.46 per month for 36 months worth of benefits for full time training.  The USAHRC recommends approval of the applicant's request, and that the applicant be compensated the amount of $15,403.32 based on the information provided in his paperwork and that any authorized compensation be sent directly to the applicant.  On 23 October 2006, the applicant concurred with this advisory opinion.

5.  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.  

6.  The Department of Veterans Affairs booklet, Federal Benefits for Veterans and Dependents, 2006 edition, states the Department of Veterans Affairs will pay $1,034 a month for training in college, technical, or vocational school to eligible veterans.  Benefits are reduced for part-time training.  The Department of Veterans Affairs will pay an additional amount, commonly called a "kicker" or "college fund" if directed by the Department of Defense.  The maximum number of months veterans can receive MGIB benefits is 36 months at the full-time rate or the part-time equivalent.  


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions have been carefully considered.  However, while it is acknowledged that nowhere in his contract does it state the ACF includes the MGIB, in the absence of evidence to the contrary (such as sworn statements or affidavits from his recruiting officials) there is insufficient evidence to show he was not advised that the $30,000 listed as his ACF benefit was the total combined amount of the MGIB and the ACF.  

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.  Therefore, administrative regularity regarding the regulatory requirement for applicants for enlistment to be properly advised of the ACF is presumed.  

3.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant enlisted in July 1997, and there is insufficient evidence to show he was not advised that the $30,000 listed as his ACF benefit was the total combined amount of the MGIB and the ACF.  Thus, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief.  

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___x _  __x_  __x__  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.  




____x______
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060005839
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
2007/02/13
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
HD
DATE OF DISCHARGE
2002/07/31
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR635-200 . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON
Completion of required service
BOARD DECISION
GRANT
REVIEW AUTHORITY
Mr. Chun
ISSUES         1.
103
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.