Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014142C071108
Original file (20060014142C071108.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        1 May 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060014142


      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      |
|     |Ms. Loretta D. Gulley             |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Paul M. Smith                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. David K. Haasenritter         |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Edward E. Montgomery          |     |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 entire
$40,000.00 Army College Fund (ACF) kicker.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that her enlistment contract states
she was to receive the $40,000.00 ACF in addition to her Montgomery GI Bill
(MGIB) payout. Nowhere does her contract state the ACF and the MGIB would
total $40,000.00. It states the ACF alone would total $40,000.00.  That is
a breach of contract.

3.  The applicant provides her DD Form 2366-66, (Montgomery GI Bill Act of
1984 (MGIB) and her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from
Active Duty).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Delayed Entry Program on 14 March 2002.
Her DA Form 3286-66, paragraph 1a states that she was enlisting for, in
addition to the 9B, the U. S. Army Station/Unit/Command/Area Enlistment
Program, a cash bonus, and 9c, the U. S. Army College Fund.  Paragraph 3
states that, if her incentive in paragraph 1a was the ACF, she would be
awarded the amount of $40,000.00.  She enrolled in the MGIB on 11 July
2002, as required for eligibility of the ACF incentive.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 November 2002 for 4
years.

3.  On 22 May 2006, the applicant was honorably released from active duty
upon the completion of her 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, includes 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 23 November 2002, the veteran's rate for
basic MGIB benefits was $28,800.00 for a 4-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.  The USAHRC recommended that, if the
applicant's request is granted, the computation of any payment be based on
the information provided in her paperwork.  The total is $28,800.00.  The
USAHRC also recommended that any authorized compensation be sent directly
to the applicant.

5.  On 27 March 2007, the Education Incentives Branch, USAHRC confirmed the
ACF portion of the applicant's MGIB entitlement should have been reflected
as $11,600.00 (or $311.11 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 27 March 2007, a copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the
applicant for comment or rebuttal.  To date, the applicant has failed to
respond.

7.  Table 9-4 of 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 $40,000.00 for
a
4-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."

9.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records)
prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records
by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR.  The regulation
provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the
presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of
proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that she is entitled to the ACF for
$40,000.00 was carefully considered.

2.  It is acknowledged that nowhere in the applicant’s 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 her
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 November 2002.  There is insufficient evidence to show she was not
advised that the $40,000.00 listed as her 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

___PMS_  ___DKH  _  __EEM__  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.




                                         __Paul M. Smith_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060014142                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/05/01                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |MR. SCHWARTZ                            |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009229

    Original file (20060009229.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Item 1 (Acknowledgement) of this document shows that she enlisted for the U. S. Army Training Enlistment Program, U.S. Army Incentive Program, Cash Bonus ($1,000.00), the ACF ($40,000.00), and that the date of her enlistment in the RA was scheduled for 8 January 2002. The applicant's service records contain a DA Form 3286-66 (Statement of Understanding, United States Army Incentive Enlistment Program), dated 8 January 2002. There is insufficient evidence to show she was not advised that...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012447

    Original file (20060012447.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The applicant's DA Form 3286-66 stated he was enlisting, in addition to other enlistment incentives, for the ACF at $50,000. 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.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060017817

    Original file (20060017817.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Fields Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests, in effect, that her enlistment contract be honored as written, and receive full payment of the Army College Fund (ACF) in the amount of $40,000. The applicant enlisted in May 2002.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060007186C071108

    Original file (20060007186C071108.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Dale E. DeBruler | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. 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). 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.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060002110C071108

    Original file (20060002110C071108.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Dale E. DeBruler | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant provides his DA Form 3286-66 (Statement of Understanding United States Army Incentive Enlistment Program); DA Form 3286-59 (Statement of Enlistment, United States Army Enlistment Program), and his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. There is insufficient evidence to show he was not advised that the $40,000.00...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014119C071108

    Original file (20060014119C071108.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    His DA Form 3286-66, paragraph 1a states that he was enlisting for, in addition to the 9B, the U. S. Army Station/Unit/Command/Area Enlistment Program and 9c, the U. S. Army College Fund. On 27 March 2007, the Education Incentives Branch, USAHRC confirmed the ACF portion of the applicant's MGIB entitlement should have been reflected as $2,600.00 (or $72.22 in 36 equal installments). U.S. Army Recruiting Command (USAREC) message 98-080, dated 12 November 1998, increased the total amounts of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070003745C071029

    Original file (20070003745C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant's DA Form 3286-66 stated she was enlisting, in addition to another enlistment incentive, for the ACF for $40,000. The above correction will allow the Board to pay the applicant an additional ACF payment up to $19,286.00 or $536.00 per month in 36 monthly installments, for the time she was/is enrolled in an approved program of education. As a result, the Board recommends that Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by amending her DA Form...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013160

    Original file (20090013160.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests that he be paid $40,000.00 in Army College Fund (ACF) benefits as outlined in his enlistment contract. The applicant’s military records may be corrected to show his DA Form 3286-66 was amended to include the sentence, “If ACF benefits in the amount of $40,000.00 (exclusive of MGIB benefits) were authorized by the official processing you for enlistment and the Government fails to pay the full amount under the appropriate provisions and such failure results in...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050016988C071029

    Original file (20050016988C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Ronald D. Gant | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. His DA Form 3286-66, paragraph 1a states that he was enlisting for, in addition to other incentives, the U. S. Army College Fund. There is insufficient evidence to show he was not advised that the $26,500 listed as his ACF benefit was the total combined amount of the MGIB and the ACF.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012690

    Original file (20060012690.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant enrolled in the MGIB on 13 June 2000, as was required for eligibility of the ACF incentive. 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. 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...