RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  27 February 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060012447 


	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. Gerard W. Schwartz

Acting Director

Mr. G. E. Vandenberg

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Ted S. Kanamine

Chairperson

Mr. Larry C. Bergquist

Member

Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas

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 that he be paid the $50,000 Army College Fund (ACF) "kicker" in addition to his Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) entitlement.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his enlistment contract states he was to receive the $50,000 ACF in addition to his MGIB payout.  Nowhere does his contract state the ACF and the MGIB would total $50,000.  It states the ACF alone would total $50,000.  

3.  The applicant provides copies of his DA Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document); DD Form 1966 (Record of Military Processing); USAREC Form 1150 (Statement of Understanding – Army Policy); DA Form 3286-66 (Statement of Understanding United States Army Incentive Enlistment Program); and 6 additional enlistment related documents.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted under the Delayed Entry Program on 30 October 2001. His DA Form 3286-66 states that he was enlisting for the U. S. Army Station/ Command/Unit/Area Enlistment Program, a $4,000.00 U. S. Army Cash Bonus, and the U. S. Army College Fund in the amount of $50,000.00.  He enrolled in the MGIB as required for eligibility of the ACF incentive.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 January 2002 for 4 years and at the time of his application he was still on active duty.

3.  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 been a combined MGIB and ACF benefit.  It noted that the DA Form 3286-66 does not clarify that information and may be misleading to the member entering active duty.  When the applicant entered active duty on 11 January 2002, the veteran's rate for basic MGIB benefits was $28,800.00 for a 4-year 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 for the ACF 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 $28,800.00.  They also recommended that any authorized compensation be sent directly to the applicant.

4.  The Education Incentives Branch, USAHRC confirmed the ACF portion of the applicant's MGIB entitlement should have been reflected as $21,200.00 (or $588.89 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.

5.  A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment or rebuttal.  On 23 September 2006, the applicant concurred with the advisory opinion.

6.  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.  

7.  USAREC Message 98-080, dated 12 November 1998, increased the total amounts of the ACF (to $50,000 for a 4-year enlistment for priority MOSs) 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.  The applicant's DA Form 3286-66 stated he was enlisting, in addition to other enlistment incentives, for the ACF at $50,000. 00.

3.  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.

4.  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 $50,000 listed as his ACF benefit was the total combined amount of the MGIB and the ACF.   

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


BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_LMD ___  __LCB__  __TSK___  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.




_       Ted S. Kanamine______
          CHAIRPERSON


INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060012447
SUFFIX

RECON
 
DATE BOARDED
20070227 
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
 
DATE OF DISCHARGE
 
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
  . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
103.01
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.