IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  16 March 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090016737 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show he is eligible for the "Army GI Bill."

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he contributed to the "Army GI Bill" but it is not listed on his DD Form 214.  He further states that he does not have any Leave and Earnings Statement (LESs) to support his request but the LESs may be obtained from his military records.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentary evidence in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.
2. The applicant's military service records contain a DD Form 214, with an effective date of 18 June 2003.  This document shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 February 2002.  Upon completion of basic combat training and advanced individual training he was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman).  The applicant was honorably released from active duty on 18 June 2003 after completing a total of 1 year, 4 months, and 7 days of active service.  Item 15a (Member Contributed to Post-Vietnam Era Veteran’s Educational Assistance Program) of his DD Form 214 contains the entry, “No.”

3.  A review of the applicant's military service records failed to show he contributed to the post-Vietnam Era Veteran's Educational Assistance Program (VEAP).

4.  The applicant's military records contain a DD Form 2366 (Montgomery GI Bill Act of 1984) that shows he enrolled in the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) on 10 January 2002.  This document states in Item 2 (Statement of Understanding), paragraph c (All Other Service Members), subparagraph (1), "I am eligible for the MGIB based on my initial entry on active duty after June 30, 1985."  The applicant's record contains a second DD Form 2366 which also shows he enrolled in the MGIB on 21 February 2002.

5.  The VEAP was an educational incentive program offered to individuals who enlisted between 1 January 1977 and 30 June 1985.  The program was designed for the post-Vietnam era Soldiers as a means of establishing a fund to support their educational objectives following their military service.  For every dollar contributed by a Soldier, the government matched it with a two dollar contribution to the individual's VEAP account.  Participation in VEAP was a voluntary option and was replaced, in July 1985, by the MGIB and the Army College Fund Program.  

6.  Chapter 30, Title 38 of the U.S, Code, established eligibility requirements for participation in the Veteran's Educational Assistance Act of 1984 (New GI Bill).  It provided that individuals who entered an initial period of active duty on or after
1 July 1985 would be automatically enrolled in the program unless they opted to disenroll within a specific time frame established by the individual Services.  Once enrolled in the New GI Bill, the individual's basic pay was reduced $100.00 per month for each of the first full 12 months of active duty and could not be refunded, suspended or stopped.  An honorable discharge is required for receipt of entitlements, which amounted to $300.00 per month for 36 months, for individuals who completed at least 3 years of active service.

7.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) prescribes the separation documents that must be prepared for Soldiers on retirement, discharge, release from active duty service, or control of the Active Army.  It also establishes standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  Chapter 2 contains guidance on the preparation of the DD Form 214.  It states, in pertinent part, that the source documents for entering information on the DD Form 214 will be the Personnel Qualification Record (PQR), Enlisted/Officer Record Brief (ERB/ORB), separation approval authority documentation or order, or any other document authorized for filing in the Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

8.  Paragraph 2-4 (Completing the DD Form 214) of the separation documents regulation, contains item-by-item instructions for completing the DD Form 214.  The instructions for Item 15a specify, in pertinent part, if the Soldier contributed to VEAP and did not get money back, mark “Yes.”  For those who enlisted before 1984, contributed to VEAP, and received their money back, mark “No.”  For any Soldier who enlisted after 1985, mark, “No.”  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends, in effect, that his DD Form 214 should be corrected to show that he contributed to the MGIB was carefully considered.  

2.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was enrolled in the MGIB on 
21 February 2002.  However, the DD Form 214 in use at the time of the applicant’s separation from active duty is not designed to show an individual’s contribution to the MGIB.  The applicant's record indicates he enrolled in the MGIB during his period of service.  The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) administers the MGIB program; it is recommended that the applicant contact the VA to determine his eligibility for educational benefits.

3.  Based on regulatory guidance, the applicant’s DD Form 214, Item 15a is properly marked "No."  Therefore, considering all the evidence and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____x____  ____x____  _____x___  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.




      _______ _   x_______   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090016737



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090016737



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1