Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 09043-05
Original file (09043-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~51OO



SRB
Docket No. 9043-05
10 May 06





This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 May 2006. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by NPC memorandum 1780 Pers 675 of 27 February 2006, a copy of which is attached.

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material evidence or other matter not previouslyconsidered by the Board. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.



         Sincerely,               
        
         W. DEAN PFIEFFER
         Executive Director




Enclosure





        
DEPARTMENT OF
 THE NAVY
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000
1780
PERS-675
27 Feb 06

MEMOPANDUN FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

Via: Assistant for BCNR Matters (PERS-31C)

Subj: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ICO
         
Ref: (a) CNPC memo 5420 PERS-31C of 21 Feb 06
(b) Title 38, United taLes Code, Chapter 32
(c) Veterans Irnprovernentr Act of 1996 (PL 104-275)
(d) Veterans Benefits and Health Care Improvement Act of
2000 (PL 106-419)

 1.       The following is provided in response to reference (a)

a. Per reference (b), the Veterans Educational Assistance Program (VEAP) was available to members who entered the military for the first time between 1 January 1977 and 30 June 1985. It was closed to new enrollments on 30 June 1985, but reopened for five months from 28 October 1986 to 31 March 1987. Notification of the open period and final closure of VEAP was given the widest dissemination. Only those members who elected to enroll in VEAP and had their disbursing office start an allotment to a VEAP account are considered participants. A review of record indicates he initially entered active duty (other than for training) on 3 January 1985. records further indicate he did not participate in VEAP before 1 July 1985, or by the end of the VEAP open period, 31 March 1987. Since these were legislated deadlines, should not be allowed to participate now.
b. Reference (c) offered the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) Program enrollment to active duty members with money in a VEAP account on 9 October 1996 (date of enactment). Per reference (d), an individual who was a VEAP participant on or before 9 October 1996 and served continuously from that date through at least 1 April 2000 was allowed an opportunity to convert from VEAP to the MGIB Program. Unfortunately, no provisions were made in references (c) or (d) for members like AMEC who did not participate in VEAP.
c. We recommend denial of AMEC request. indicates he didn’t receive proper counseling on VEAP. We note this counseling was to have taken place over 20 years ago and he has submitted no evidence that he tried to remedy the miscouseling in


Subj: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ICO
 ;
 the interim years. If members declined initially, they still had a second opportunity during the VEAP open enrollment period. VEAP was never a very popular program, and it is only now when members/veterans are nearing retirement or considering further education that they are requesting enrollment in VEAP with conversion to the more beneficial MGIB Program. Although we believe all who have served on active duty deserve quality education benefits, allowing those who didn’t participate in VEAP before the legislated deadlines to enroll now, with or without subsequent enrollment in the MGIB Program, would create an inequity to the thousand~ of othe Sailo s who also didnt particip tze and now have no education b nefits.

 2. PERS-675G’s point of contact is who can be reached at (DSN) 882-4258 or (C) 901-874-4258.



Head, GI Bl Programs Section (PERS-675G)
2


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00759-06

    Original file (00759-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.SincerelyW. He had from the time he completed the DD Form 2057 until Congress closed VEAP to new enrollments for the last time on 31 March 1987 to start an allotment and become a participant. Although we believe all who have served on active duty deserve quality education benefits, allowing those who didn’t participate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00644-06

    Original file (00644-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.Sincerely,W. For veterans and members like who entered during VEAP era and were not eligible for MGIB Program enrollment, we would not expect to find a CI Bill program document in their service record. If the member didn’t elect to enroll in VEAP initially, they had a second opportunity during the VEAP open enrollment...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 04694-06

    Original file (04694-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. Per reference (d), an individual who was a VEAP participant on or before 9 October 1996 and served continuously from that date through at least 1 April 2000 was allowed an opportunity to convert from VEAP to the MGIB Program. For veterans and members like de Wh entered during VEAP era and were not eligible for MGIB...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00383-06

    Original file (00383-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. Per reference (b), an individual who was a Veterans Educational Assistance Program (VEAP) participant on or before 9 October 1996 and served continuously from that date through at least 1 April 2000 was allowed an opportunity to convert from VEAP to the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) Program. We had other cases of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00488-07

    Original file (00488-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by NPC memo 1780 Ser 352G/254 of 20 Feb 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. Reference (c) offered the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) Program enrollment to active duty members with money in a VEAP account on 9 October 1996 (date...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05606-07

    Original file (05606-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    5606-07 28 Aug 07This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552.A three-member panel of the Board for correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 August 2007. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by NPC memo 1780 PERS-352G of 27 Jul 07, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, a majority of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02150-07

    Original file (02150-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considerate by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by NP~ memo 1780 PERS-352G of 11 Apr 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09111-07

    Original file (09111-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by NPC memo 1780 PERS-352G of 26 Nov 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. Reference (c) offered the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) Program enrollment to active duty members with money in a VEAP account on 9 October 1996 (date of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00033-06

    Original file (00033-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 May 2006. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10843-07

    Original file (10843-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by NPC memo 1780 PER5-352G of 23 Jan 08, 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...