He contends that when he signed DA Form 3286 67 Statement of by W60x88

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 5

									                        MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


       IN THE CASE OF:



       BOARD DATE:    26 October 2000
       DOCKET NUMBER: AR2000041020

       I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board
for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

       Mr. Carl W. S. Chun                                  Director
       Ms. Wanda L. Waller                                  Analyst


 The following members, a quorum, were present:

       Ms. Melinda M. Darby                                 Chairperson
       Mr. William D. Powers                                Member
       Mr. Arthur A. Omartian                               Member

        The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552,
convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. In accordance with Army
Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the
corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal
hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny
the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant
evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error
or injustice.

       The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application
to the Board and as restated herein.

       The Board considered the following evidence:

       Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
          records
       Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
               advisory opinion, if any)
ABCMR Memorandum of                                             AR2000041020
Consideration (cont)

APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he receive the Army College Fund.

APPLICANT STATES: That he enlisted in the Army in order to qualify for the educational
incentive programs. He contends that when he signed DA Form 3286-67 (Statement of
Understanding (Army Policy)), he indicated his desire to receive the Army College Fund
and the Montgomery GI Bill. He states that his counselor did not advise him that the
military occupational specialty (MOS) 91B would disqualify him from receiving the Army
College Fund. He also contends that his counselor failed to provide him with DA Form
3286-66 (Statement of Understanding US Army Incentive Program) which explains the
eligibility requirements for the Army College Fund. The applicant claims that his
enlistment terminates shortly and that he has already been accepted into a college.
However, without the Army College Fund, he cannot afford to attend school. In support
of his application, he submits a copy of DA Form 3286-67 dated 27 January 1996 and a
fax from the Education Incentives Branch Action Officer advising him to apply to the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR).

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:

The applicant enlisted in the USAR on 27 January 1996 for a period of 8 years. He
entered active duty on 13 August 1996 for a period of 4 years in pay grade
E-3. At the time the applicant submitted his application to the ABCMR, he was serving on
active duty in pay grade E-4. The applicant also stated that he was scheduled to be
discharged on 12 August 2000.

Item 31 (Specific Option/Program Enlisted for, Military Skill, or Assignment to a
Geographical Area Guarantees) on the applicant’s DD Form 1966/2 (Record of Military
Processing - Armed Forces of the United States), dated 27 November 1995, shows that
he initially enlisted for MOS 13M (multiple launch rocket system crewmember) for 2 years
and 19 weeks and the Army College Fund option.

Item 5 on the applicant’s DA Form 3286-67, dated 27 January 1996, shows that he
enlisted for the Montgomery GI Bill and the Army College Fund.

Annex C (Statement for Enlistment United States Army Training Enlistment Progarm) of
the applicant’s DD Form 4/3 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document), dated 13 August
1996, shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 4 years in MOS 91B
(medical specialist).

The applicant’s records contain DD Form 2366 (Montgomery GI Bill Act of 1984 (MGIB)),
dated 13 August 1996, which shows the entry “I do not desire to participate in the MGIB.
 I understand that I WILL NOT be able to enroll at a later date.” in item 3 (Statement of
Disenrollment).

In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Education
Incentives and Counseling Branch, U.S. Total Army Personnel Command. That office
                                             2
ABCMR Memorandum of                                               AR2000041020
Consideration (cont)

recommends disapproval of the applicant’s request for the Army College Fund. The
opinion points out that the Army College Fund is an enlistment option which must be
included in the individual’s initial enlistment agreement, usually found on the DA Form
3286-66. After careful review of the applicant’s enlistment contract, it was noted that he
entered active duty for a
4 year term of service in MOS 91B. The opinion further noted that MOS 91B was not
offered for the Army College Fund; therefore, the applicant’s contract does not include a
DA Form 3286-66. The applicant’s contract does include a DA Form 3286-67 in which he
initialed “Yes” for Montgomery GI Bill and “Yes” for Army College Fund; however, the
following paragraph states he requested option 282 which is for the 2 year Army College
Fund. The applicant’s DD Form 1966/2, block 31, indicates he was originally enlisting for
MOS 13M for 2 years and 19 weeks and the Army College Fund option. When he entered
active duty, his MOS was changed to MOS 91B for the 4 year option. No evidence exists
to indicate if he was informed that he would lose the Army College Fund option when he
chose MOS 91B. His DD Form 1966/1, block 20K, “Program Enlisted For” is coded “Q”
which means Non-College Fund enlistment regardless of the term of enlistment. In
conclusion, the Chief of the Education Incentives and Counseling Branch states the
applicant is not eligible for the Army College Fund.
A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment. He did not
respond within the given time frame.

Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program)
governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of
persons into the Regular Army and the U.S. Army Reserve. Chapter 9 (Enlistment
Programs and Options) provides, in pertinent part, that enlistees electing the Army
College Fund must remain enrolled in the GI Bill to retain this incentive.

DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by
the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and
advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:

1. Evidence of record shows that the applicant enlisted in the USAR for 8 years in MOS
13M for the Army College Fund and Montgomery GI Bill education incentives.

2. Evidence of record also shows the applicant entered active duty on 13 August 1996 for
a period of 4 years in MOS 91B and elected not to participate in the Montgomery GI Bill
effective the same date. Therefore, in accordance with the governing regulation, the
applicant is not eligible for the Army College Fund based on his disenrollment from the
Montgomery GI Bill on 13 August 1996.
3. The Board noted the applicant’s contentions that his counselor did not advise him that
MOS 91B would disqualify him from receiving the Army College Fund and that his
counselor failed to provide him with DA Form 3286-66 which explains the eligibility
requirements for the Army College Fund. However, the applicant has provided no
evidence to support these contentions.

                                             3
ABCMR Memorandum of                                                AR2000041020
Consideration (cont)

4. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the
satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in
error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this
requirement.

5. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________ ________ ________ GRANT

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

AAO___ WDP____ MMD____ DENY APPLICATION



                                              Carl W. S. Chun
                                    Director, Army Board for Correction
                                             of Military Records




                                              4
ABCMR Memorandum of                       AR2000041020
Consideration (cont)


                                  INDEX

CASE ID                AR2000041020
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED           20001026
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION         (DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES     1.          112.1200
           2.
           3.
           4.
           5.
           6.




                                    5

								
To top