RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:       13 February 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060007186


      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             |
|     |Ms. Loretta D. Gulley             |     |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 entire
$33,000.00 Army College Fund (ACF).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his enlistment contract states he
was to receive the $33,000.00 ACF in addition to his Montgomery GI Bill
(MGIB) payout. Nowhere does his contract state the ACF and the MGIB would
total $33,000.00.  It states the ACF alone would total $33,000.00.  That is
a breach of contract.

3.  The applicant provides his DD Form 2366, (Montgomery GI Bill Act of
1984 (MBIB)) and his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from
Active Duty).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Delayed Entry Program on 11 June 2002.
His DA Form 3286-66, paragraph 1a states that he was enlisting for, in
addition to the 9A, U. S. Army Training Enlistment Program, a cash bonus,
and 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 $33,000.00.
He enrolled in the MGIB on 11 June 2002, as required for eligibility of the
ACF incentive.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 August 2002 for 3
years.

3.  On 11 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, 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 12 August 2002, the veteran's rate for
basic MGIB benefits was $28,800.00 for a 3-year or more term of service
obligation.  Many Soldiers entering active duty are erroneously led to
believe they will 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.  The total is $33,000.00.  They also
recommended that any authorized compensation be sent directly to the
applicant.
5.  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).  That office
also confirmed that the ACF is a fixed amount based on the month and year
the member entered active duty.

6.  On 13 October 2006, a copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the
applicant for comment or rebuttal.  To date, the applicant has failed to
respond.

7.  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 disbursed to the
participant in 36 equal monthly installments while the person is 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 (to $33,000.00 for
a
3-year enlistment), effective 12 November 1998.  This message stated, in
pertinent 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 contention that he is entitled to the ACF for
$33,000.00 was 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 the
Army in August 2002.  There is insufficient evidence to show he was not
advised that the $33,000.00 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

___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                 |AR20060007186                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/02/13                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |20050811                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200, Chapter 4                   |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Completion of Required Active Service   |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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