DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for the Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
FINAL DECISION
BCMR Docket No. 2009-187
SUMMARY OF THE RECORD
The applicant asked the Board to correct block 15 of her DD 214 dated September 21,
1990, to show that she contributed to the post-Vietnam Era Veterans’ Educational Assistance
Program (VEAP). She alleged that allotments were withdrawn from her pay so that she would be
eligible for educational benefits, but her DD 214 erroneously indicates that she did not participate
in this program. She submitted copies of her DD 214, her Leave and Earnings Statements
showing allotments, and a letter from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) dated April 7,
2009, stating that she was ineligible for educational benefits because more than 10 years have
passed since her discharge.
The Judge Advocate General (JAG) noted that the application is untimely and recom-
mended that the Board deny relief because the applicant enrolled and paid for educational
benefits under the Montgomery G.I. Bill (MGIB) when she enlisted in 1986, not under VEAP,
which ended in 1984. The JAG submitted a copy of her MGIB enrollment form. He noted that
the DVA denied her application for MGIB benefits because she was discharged in 1990, and as
stated on the MGIB enrollment form, MGIB benefits must be used within 10 years of a veteran’s
discharge.
In response to the JAG’s recommendation, the applicant stated that she had been con-
fused by the language in block 15 and thought that it applied to her enrollment in the MGIB
program. She asked that her DD 214 be amended to show that she participated in the MGIB and
that her eligibility for MGIB benefits be extended because the notation in block 15 had confused
her about her eligibility and because she was busy working and raising her own child during the
10 years she was eligible for MGIB benefits.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
DD 214s are prepared in accordance with detailed regulations in a manual, COMDTINST
M1900.4C. DD 214s have no block for noting participation in the MGIB program. Block 18,
which is for remarks, may contain only those remarks authorized by the manual, which does not
authorize any entries about the MGIB. Rather than noting MGIB participation on veterans’ DD
214s, the Armed Forces now inform the DVA directly about which of its members have enrolled
in the MGIB. The record indicates that the Coast Guard properly informed the DVA of the
applicant’s enrollment in the MGIB, and that the DVA only denied her application because more
than 10 years have passed since her date of discharge. Therefore, the applicant has not proved
that the lack of a notation about her MGIB enrollment on her DD 214 is erroneous or is unjustly
preventing her from receiving MGIB benefits.
The applicant asked the Board to extend her eligibility for MGIB benefits, but the Board
has no authority to do so because MGIB benefits are not administered by the Coast Guard but by
the DVA. This Board has no authority to correct the records of the DVA. Only the DVA has
authority to extend a veteran’s eligibility period for MGIB benefits.
ORDER
The application of former XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, USCG, for correction of her
military record is denied.
March 11, 2010
Date
Lillian Cheng
George J. Jordan
Paul B. Oman
CG | BCMR | Education Benefits | 2011-243
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On October 20, 2011, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny relief in accordance with a memorandum submitted by the Commander, Personnel Service Center (PSC). Block 18 of the DD 214 correctly includes the following comment with regard to MGIB:...
CG | BCMR | Education Benefits | 1999-028
VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On July 22, 1999, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the applicant’s request for relief be dismissed “without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and because effective relief cannot be granted by the BCMR.” The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant’s request was similar to those of several other BCMR applicants who had alleged that “the Coast Guard failed to take timely action on an allotment request to redeposit VEAP funds prior to the cut-off...
CG | BCMR | Education Benefits | 2003-149
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. • a copy of his Allotment Worksheet dated April 24, 2001, requesting a monthly deduction of $180.00 from his base pay and total deduction of $2,700.00 for his MGIB account; In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted the following: • a copy of his form DD 2366 dated April 24, 2001, with his signature in block 3(a),...
CG | BCMR | Education Benefits | 2007-069
The applicant stated that she declined participation in the MGIB program while in the Coast Guard because she thought she was entitled to benefits based on her previous enrollment in the program during the eight months she was in the Navy. I understand the benefits of the MGIB program and that I will not be able to enroll at a later date.’ VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On March 1, 2007, the JAG submitted an advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny relief. CGPC stated that the...
CG | BCMR | Education Benefits | 1999-115
The Chief Counsel alleged that, by signing a page 7 entry on May 1, 198x, the applicant acknowledged that he was informed of his eligibility to enroll in VEAP but decided not to enroll.3 Finally, the Chief Counsel argued, any relief the Board could grant would be ineffective in this case because the Coast Guard does not administer VEAP accounts. The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant’s military record and submissions, the Coast Guard’s...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077598C070215
In that rebuttal she states that a memorandum prompted her to start an MGIB account, and submits a notification of a document titled “VEAP to MGIB Bill Conversion Open Season.” In that document it was stated that to be eligible for the conversion, a soldier had to be a VEAP participant on 9 October 1996. VEAP-era service members who never opened a VEAP account have no educational benefits as a veteran. If the applicant had proven that she had opened a VEAP account by making a deposit prior...
CG | BCMR | Education Benefits | 2012-089
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. PSC noted that the applicant seems to be asking the Board for his MGIB benefits and should be told to address his request to the DVA instead, which administers MGIB benefits. The Coast Guard has stated that the applicant’s record is not erroneous and clearly shows that he is entitled to MGIB benefits.
CG | BCMR | Education Benefits | 2008-140
CGPC stated that the applicant’s DD 2366 was completed erroneously to indicate that the applicant was not eligible for MGIB benefits and yet was signed by a certifying official. of the Pay Manual, “[e]ligible members are automatically enrolled [in MGIB] unless they elect not to receive educational benefits within the first 2 weeks of active duty.” Therefore, because the applicant actually was eligible for MGIB benefits and because he did not disenroll by signing the DD 2366 in block 5, his...
CG | BCMR | Education Benefits | 2003-131
TJAG stated that the applicant failed to contribute to VEAP during his period of active duty. § 52.22 states that an appli- cation “must be filed within three years after the applicant discovered or reasonably should have discovered the alleged error or injustice.” He argued that in this case, the applicant reasonably should have discovered the alleged error in his records no later than his release from active duty on May 14, 1982, when he received his DD 214. An application to the Board...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 03830
DPSIT states the applicant attended a Basic Military Training (BMT) VEAP briefing (as evidenced by the DD From 2057) which included statements from the Military Training Instructor (MTI) that signing the DD Form 2057 was a confirmation of the briefing and to enroll, individuals must go to the local Accounting and Finance Office to initiate a monthly allotment. The DPSIT evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR...