I enlisted in the NYANG back in 1983 (to give something back and for the education benefits promised - i.e.: bought into the hype) - started 'active duty for training' at the end of March 1983 and was fully 'honorably discharged' (w/USAF and NSA TS SBI security clearance) from 'active' back to the 'guard' on Oct 25th 1983 (over 200 contiguous days of 'active duty' service).

According to the US Code my 'active duty for training' made me ineligible for GI bill benefits but I should've been eligible for education benefits under the MGIB.

However, according to the eligibility description listed on this site I STILL remained ineligible due to the fact I enlisted in a 'GAP year'. No one told me this prior to enlisting. In-fact our BMTS flight TI repeatedly told ALL of us (full active USAF, AF Reserve and ANG) that after having served 180 contiguous days of 'active duty' service - we'd be eligible for full veteran's benefits - including education funding.

Many in my basic training flight were full time college students who enlisted (in the ANG/reserve) on that premise - for tuition assistance.

After I returned to NYS and attempted to enroll in college I was told I was NOT eligible for ANY education benefits - other than those available to ANYONE qualifying through the FAFSA program - due to this 'GAP year' quandry.

Of course I realise today (as over 10 years had passed since discharge from active duty) I couldn't even get regular GI Bill benefits today - even if I'd been fully active duty USAF - but "What was the legally established justification for this 'GAP' in eligibility?"

Didn't Congress know by doing this they established a separate 'class' of prior military personnel and that by denying benefits on the basis of a time frame qualifies as a violation of civil liberties under the 14th Amendment?

The 14th Amendment (according to opinions of US Supreme Court justices) rules [B]"No body of government (resident to the USA) may legislate, establish or enforce ANY statute which has the effect (intentional or otherwise) to establish a 'class' which is denied rights and/or protections accorded others".[/B]

Limiting rights and protections to a class of veterans due to their having served inside a narrowly defined time frame - regardless of the member's honorable service - creates a violation of civil rights because there is no justifiable basis (proven by scientifically established criteria) for such limitation.

Denying (otherwise capable) pilots access to the cockpit of fighter jets because of their physical size (exceeding the confines of the cockpit design) MAY well be scientifically 'justifiable' under a costs analysis (established during the design stage) just as denying females access to service aboard NAVY ships was rightfully determined 'unjustified'.

However, government statutes which are legislated, established or enforced in a manner which can be interpreted as 'arbitrary or capricious' can be determined invalid and illegal under constitutional law.

Limiting veterans' benefits on no other factor than date of service not only does those who served a dis-service and violation of civil rights and protections - such behaviour engenders distrust of the determining authorities by those affected and any whom may be asked to serve at a later date.

Witness, today, the distrust engendered by news of shoddy treatment to returned injured vets. Every media story, youtube vid, and camera phone upload (depicting poor treatment of active and inactive military personnel and veterans) has the effect of dissuading potential enlistees from considering military service - and justifiably so for if this nation's leaders, both in politics and commerce, are willing to punish those who swore their lives to defend THEM (and the nation) against aggressors - why should we risk OUR lives?

In closing - recall a bit of Roman history. Those members of the vaunted Roman Legions, who left for far corners of the world to create or maintain the empire often returned to find their homes, businesses and farms 'appropriated' by people with influence in the Roman Senate because women and children were not 'legally' permitted to own property.

In the 1930s Hitler's administration passed legislation 'legally' revoking the civil rights and protections of certain 'classes' of Germans (including but not limited to those of the Hebrew faith) and we all know what followed.

As a guardsman (served 7 years) I know the price of military service. Due to my faithful service I was routinely denied gainful employment (w/benefits) by a variety of companies and government bodies even though I was otherwise proven capable.

In-fact, (in 1987) after gaining a job in the US Postal Service, I found my employment threatened by managers after informing them of my impending annual training - as had 2 other enlistees who were hired with me.

This 'discrimination' (permitted by Congress and the EEOC through non-enforcement) left me destitute and if not for my aged and infirm parents' generousity - I'd have been homeless (for having volunteered to serve in this nation's defense forces!).

Adding insult to injury; the much touted GI Bill and Montgomery GI Bill were dangled in-front of my face as an enlistment bonus - only to turnout as false promises upon my return from my 'active duty' service.

What REALLY bites is the unconstitutional loophole Congress established for those who are chosen to be officers.

In that proviso separating 'active duty' from 'active duty for training': People who are chosen to enrol at the military academies are accorded special privilages. I know - I ran with the marathon club at the USMA at West Point and got to be friends with a few cadets, NCOs and officers.

This loophole allows a cadet to spend over 180 contiguous days on 'active duty for training' (just like guards and reservists) and drop-out while STILL being eligible for the GI Bill (so long as they were discharged 'honorably').

Previously anyone who couldn't 'cut it' at West Point was forced to serve a few years in the regular US ARMY as an enlistee. That all changed a few years ago.

But why should someone, who 'washed out' of West Point (or either of the other service academies) be permitted to receive GI Bill benefits as a 'veteran' when their ONLY 'active duty' time was 'for training'? For that matter -why should anyone who spent 4 years in a service academy (leaving this 'military service' without commissoning or deployment) be ruled 'eligible' for veteran's benefits when their ENTIRE term of 4 years was 'for training'?

I realise there will be some, reading this, who will dismiss my protests due to THEIR combat service in qualified 'wars' or 'conflicts' - but ponder this. How many lives would've been lost in your units had it not been for people like me serving in those specialities 'fighting the good fight' through less obvious means?

What of those who died or were incapacitated due to their 'military service' in roles which never made the news but were pivital to YOUR success on the field of combat?

BTW: How many of you would be alive and kicking today if Soviet armoured forces had (20 years ago) been permitted a key piece of technology which would've enabled them to plough through Western Europe - using the extensive LNG pipeline network (running underground from Russia to the channel) for on the run refueling?

Were you aware of the string of fuel bunkers buried just to the east of the Iron Curtain?

How about the Soviet version of rocket-propelled minefield clearing technology - which the US technology is based upon today?

You see - swearing an oath and wearing a uniform doesn't neccessarily mean carrying a firearm into a combat zone - but it CAN mean placing your life on the line never the less.

Should ANYONE who risked death in US military service be denied equal benefits?

I served full time from 82-86 i am not eligable for gi bill it started in 85 we were never told we could cotribute i guess because we were under veap wich was a joke