Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110022136
Original file (20110022136.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  24 May 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110022136 


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 to change her eligibility code of “C” (Not Eligible-No   6-year contract/commitment with the Selected Reserve) for the Montgomery     GI Bill-Selected Reserve (MGIB-SR) in order to become eligible for the MGIB-SR program.

2.  The applicant states she is uncertain why the eligibility code of “C” has been assigned to her; however, assignment of the code has hindered her ability to receive educational assistance to continue her civilian education.  She further states she has served her country for 26 years and has not had a break in service.  The code should identify her as eligible for the MGIB and any other educational assistance available to her.     

3.  The applicant provides:

* 2 DD Forms 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* Orders 167-0003, dated 16 June 2011
* DA Form 2B (Personnel Qualification Record)

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The evidence available to the Board is limited; however, the documents that are available show the applicant initially entered military service through the Reserve Officer Training Corps and was appointed as an officer of the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 5 July 1985.  She is currently serving in the USAR in the rank/grade of lieutenant colonel/O-5 and has completed over 25 years of service.
2.  Her record is void of a DA Form 5447-R (Officer Service Agreement Selected Reserve Educational Assistance Program) and there is no indication she ever agreed to serve 6 years in the Selected Reserve for the purpose of receiving the MGIB-SR.

3.  During the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, Chief, Education Incentives Branch, dated 11 January 2012, who states:

	a.  The applicant is not eligible for MGIB-SR because she did not agree to serve 6 years in the Selected Reserve for the purpose of receiving the MGIB-SR.  If she had agreed to a 6-year commitment via DA Form 5447-R, she would have been eligible for MGIB-SR.  The applicant’s official military personnel file (OMPF) does not reflect her completing DA Form 5447-R.  Therefore, the Reserve Component Manpower System (MGIB-SR database) reflects the correct eligibility code of “C.”

	b.  The applicant can no longer qualify for MGIB-SR since her mandatory removal date is 1 August 2013 and she cannot currently commit to serve 6 years in the Selected Reserve.

	c.  The applicant may be eligible for the Montgomery GI Bill-Active Duty (Chapter 30, Title 38, U.S. Code) due to her service in the Regular Army and her contribution of $1,200.00.  She would need to apply for benefits through the Department of Veterans Affairs and have them determine her eligibility status.

	d.  The applicant earned eligibility for the Reserve Education Assistance Program (REAP) (Chapter 1607, Title 10 U.S. Code) due to her mobilization (active duty service).

	e.  The applicant earned eligibility for the Post 9/11 GI Bill (Chapter 33, Title 38, U.S. Code) due to her mobilization (active duty service) after 10 September 2001.  Also, please note the applicant exercised her eligibility for the Post 9/11  GI Bill when she transferred her education benefits to her children on                31 December 2011.  Her request was approved on 3 January 2012.  She did not incur an additional service obligation due to her already having 20 years of service as of 1 August 2009.

	f.  Due to the applicant transferring her Post 9/11 GI Bill education benefits to her dependents, she had to relinquish her eligibility for either the Montgomery   GI Bill-Active Duty or the Reserve Education Assistance Program.  Per the Department of Veterans Affairs, the applicant chose to relinquish her REAP.  Therefore, she remains eligible for MGIB-Active Duty and may apply to the Department of Veterans Affairs to use the MGIB-Active Duty.  Also, based on her active duty (mobilization) service after 10 September 2001, she may request a change to the MGIB-Active Duty delimiting period and possibly receive              12 months of MGIB-Active Duty benefits.

4.  On 12 January 2012, the advisory opinion was furnished to the applicant for information and to allow her the opportunity to submit comments or a rebuttal.  She did not respond.

5.  The MGIB-SR provides educational assistance for all qualifying Selected Reserve (TPU (Troop Programs Units) and Individual Mobilization Augmentation) members.  It was enacted by Congress on 1 July 1985 to attract high-quality men and women into the reserve branch of the Armed Forces.  To be eligible, Selected Reserve members must execute a contractual agreement to serve 6 years in the Selected Reserve, must have a high school diploma or equivalency, complete initial active duty for training, remain in good standing, and satisfactorily participate in training.

6.  Department of Defense Instruction 1322.17 implements the policies and procedures for management of education benefits under the MGIB-SR.  It states that a member entitled to MGIB-SR must be advised of their entitlement to benefits and issued a Department of Defense Form 2384-1 (Notice of Basic Eligibility) within 30 days of attaining entitlement.  The form becomes a permanent part of the Official Military Personnel Record.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s request to change her eligibility code of “C” in order to become eligible for the MGIB-SR program has been carefully reviewed and found to lack merit.

2.  The applicant did not provide nor does her OMPF reflect her ever completing    DA Form 5447-R to enter into a 6 year contract/commitment with the Selected Reserve.  Therefore, the MGIB-SR database reflects the correct eligibility code of “C.”  In view of the foregoing, she is not entitled to the requested relief.

3.  The determination of eligibility for MGIB benefits is not within the purview of this Board.  However, as stated in the advisory opinion, the applicant may be eligible for MGIB-Active Duty and should address any further questions she may have to the Department of Veterans Affairs.



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)                                         AR20110022136





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110022136



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10032-09

    Original file (10032-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, | sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 November. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013607

    Original file (20090013607.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states that his unit commander at the 414th Civil Affairs (CA) Battalion gave him an unsatisfactory participation for a drill weekend without trying to contact him. The applicant provides a self-authored supplementary letter; a DVA rating decision, undated; his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), dated 30 March 2004; a 414th Civil Affairs Battalion, memorandum, dated 3 December 2007, Subject: Letter of Instructions-Unexcused Absence; a DVA...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03604-07

    Original file (03604-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by NPC memo 1780 PERS-352G of 5 Jun 07, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, a majority of the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Per reference (c), members who initially entered active duty after 30 June 1985 and immediately enrolled in the MGIB Program, are eligible to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120007881

    Original file (20120007881.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for VA Education Benefits, dated 30 August 2007, that shows the applicant applied for his Reserve Educational Assistance Program (REAP) educational benefits. The criteria for a service member to be eligible for the transfer of entitlement option requires that he or she be on active duty on 1 August 2009; however our records indicate (the applicant) was discharged from the Army Reserve on 12 April 2003; therefore, he is no longer eligible to apply for the TOE [transfer of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010444C070208

    Original file (20040010444C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states that she should have been extended from her original MSO (military service obligation) date of 28 February 1999 and not the enlistment/reenlistment contract she executed on 22 October 1999 which she executed when she went from the Army National Guard to the Army Reserve. On 22 October 1999 the applicant executed an enlistment/reenlistment contract in the United States Army Reserve. Table 3-1, rule A, of Army Regulation 140-111 authorizes extensions for a period of up...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6468 14

    Original file (NR6468 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    { ) al r a) ¢ a Tm 6d \ > gus oO 4 t cd ie) ) i ) r AUT) oti C { QO -d C ay) ty 43 GS o S es b Docket No. Members who are retired are not eligible to cransfer your education benefits. The Board found that there was not revision to the Post-9/11 GI Bill law or policy in December 2009 as you claim.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009562

    Original file (20120009562.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of his records to show he transferred his Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) educational benefits to his spouse and children under the Transfer of Education Benefits provision of the Post-9/11 GI Bill prior to separating from the service. There is no evidence of record that the applicant was mobilized on or after 11 September 2001 to obtain eligibility to transfer his educational benefits to his dependents. Considering all the evidence and information presented by...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130006679

    Original file (20130006679.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of her records to show she transferred her Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) educational benefits to her dependents under the Transfer of Education Benefits (TEB) provision of the Post-9/11 GI Bill prior to retiring from active duty. The applicant contends her MGIB educational benefits should be transferred to her dependents under the TEB provision of the Post-9/11 GI Bill because she was never briefed on the option to transfer her MGIB benefits before retiring...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005867

    Original file (20080005867.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    In a letter from the San Bernardino (CA) Department of Veterans Affairs dated 29 January 2008, he was informed that he would have to submit a DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Records) in order to establish his eligibility for the MGIB-SR program. It would, therefore, be appropriate to show that he completed his IADT requirement on 22 May 1999, vice 12 August 2000, and that he had 6 years of satisfactory participation in the Selected Reserve on 21 May 2005, thus qualifying...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130001405

    Original file (20130001405.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The applicant was not serving on active duty or as a member of the Selected Reserve on or after 1 August 2009. _______ _ 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.