RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  8 March 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060011855 


	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. Joyce A. Wright

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. William F. Crain

Chairperson

Mr. Edward E. Montgomery

Member

Ms. Rea M. Nuppenau

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 $50,000.00 Army College Fund (ACF) kicker.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his ACF in the amount of $50,000.00 should be released to him.  He states that his contract did not state that he would receive the MGIB (Montgomery GI Bill) release rate.  His contract states and he was told that he would receive the MGIB plus an additional $50,000.00 from the ACF for a total of $86,000. 00.  At the current payout rate he would received only $26,600.00 of the $50,000.00 that he was entitled to from the ACF.  He would need every dollar to pay for his education. 

3.  The applicant provides a copy of DA Form 3286-66 (Statement of Understanding, United States Army Incentive Enlistment Program) and a copy of his DD Form 214 in support of his request. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's complete records are unavailable for review.  

2.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he enlisted in the US Army Reserve Delayed Entry Program on 17 October 2000 and enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 November 2000, for training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 19H, as an M1 armor crewman.

3.  The applicant’s DA Form 3286-66, paragraph 1a states that he was enlisting for, in addition to the U. S. Army Training Enlistment Program, the U. S. Army College Fund, and Cash Bonus, in the amount of $10,000.00.  Paragraph 3 states that, if his incentive in paragraph 1a was the ACF, he would be awarded up to $50,000.00 for a 4-year enlistment.  

4.  On 1 July 2005, the applicant was honorably released from active duty upon the completion of his required active service.  He was transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Reinforcement).

5.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was provided by the Chief, Education Incentives Branch (EIB), U. S. Army Human Resources Command (AHRC)-Alexandria.  The Chief, EIB, recommended approval of the applicant’s request for ACF benefits as stated on his enlistment contract.  The Chief, EIB, stated that from 1 April 1993 to 30 September 2004, the dollar amount reflected on a Soldier’s enlistment contract, DA Form 3286-66, have combined MGIB and ACF benefits.  This form did not provide this information and blatantly misled the applicant entering active duty.  The proponent of the form is the US Army Recruiting Command (USAREC), who has since revised the form and produced it in an electronic format to include appropriate changes.

6.  The Chief, EIB, stated that the applicant’s contract reflected $50,000.00.  This dollar amount included $23,400.00 which was the basic rate of the MGIB when the applicant entered active duty on 2 November 2000, and the remaining,         $26,600.00, was his ACF incentive.  To determine the monthly rate for his ACF incentive, $26,600.00 is divided by 36 months of benefits and therefore equated to $738.89 per month for up to 36 months worth of benefits for full time training. The Chief, EIB, stated that if the Board decides to grant compensation, they recommend that the computation of any payment be based on the basic rate of the MGIB when he entered active duty.  This total was $23,400.00.  If the Board does authorize any compensation, they further recommended that any amount so authorized be sent directly to the Soldier.

7.  A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment or rebuttal on 25 January 2006.  He did not respond.

8.  The applicant did not provide college transcripts to show he was currently enrolled in a college or university pursuing his education.

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.  

10.  U. S. Army Recruiting Command (USAREC) message 98-080 dated             12 November 1998 increased the total amounts of the ACF (to $50,000 for a      4-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 on 2 November 2000.  There is insufficient evidence to show he was not advised that the $50,000.00 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:

__rn____  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  __EM____  __WFC__  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.


 _____William F. Crain____
          CHAIRPERSON
INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060011855
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
20070308
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
HD
DATE OF DISCHARGE
20050701
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR 635-200, chap 4
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
103
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.