RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  15 March 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060012690 


	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 Schwartz

Acting Director

Mrs. Victoria A. Donaldson

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Ms. Margaret K. Patterson  

Chairperson

Mr. Larry W. Racster

Member

Mr. Rodney E. Barber

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 she be paid the $30,704.04 Army College Fund (ACF) entitlement promised her during her enlistment processing.  

2.  The applicant states that she was told the amount of ACF was $852.89 a month or a total of $30,704.04 over 36 months.  She continues that her enlistment contract and supplemental forms clearly states that she would receive both the ACF and the Montgomery GI Bill in the amount of $50,000.  She concludes that the paper states in clear terms that they are separate entitlements not a single total of $50,000.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of 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) in support of her application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice that occurred on 21 June 2005.  The application submitted in this case is dated 
23 August 2006.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Delayed Entry Program on 13 June 2000.  Paragraph 1a of the DA Form 3286-66 prepared at the time states that she was enlisting for the U. S. Army Station/Command/Unit/Area Enlistment Program with the ACF incentive.  Paragraph 3 states that her ACF incentive would be awarded in the amount of $50,000 for a 4-year enlistment.  The applicant enrolled in the MGIB on 13 June 2000, as was required for eligibility of the ACF incentive.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 22 June 2000 for 5 years and entered active duty.  On 21 June 2005, she was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) upon the completion of her required active service and she 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 $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.  To determine the monthly rate for her ACF incentive, $30,704.00 is divided by 36 months of benefits and therefore equates to $852.89 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 $19,296.00 based on the information provided in her paperwork and that any authorized compensation be sent directly to the applicant.  On 16 January 2007, 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 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.  

6.  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.  However, while it is acknowledged that nowhere in her contract does it state the ACF includes the MGIB, in the absence of evidence to the contrary (such as sworn statements or affidavits from her recruiting officials) there is insufficient evidence to show she was not advised that the $50,000 listed as her 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 June 2000, and there is insufficient evidence to show she was not advised that the $50,000 listed as her 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

__LWR_ _  __MKP__  _REB___  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.  




     __M. K. Patterson_____
          CHAIRPERSON


INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060012690
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED

TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
. . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION

REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
103
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.