RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00310 (Case 2)
		INDEX CODE:  128.14

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS:

Reimbursement of education loans.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During the time he was erroneously separated from the military, he incurred a student loan debt.  Due to his unemployment status and since he was no longer on active duty, there was no financial aid provided over the two years that it took to have him reinstated back on active duty.

All he is asking for is the amount that would have been paid over a two-year period that the service would have covered.  He was unsuccessful in obtaining relief from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS).

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement and additional documents associated with the issues cited in his contentions.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Texas Air National Guard (TXANG) on 1 Nov 84.

On 8 Aug 97, the applicant, who was then serving on active duty under Title 32, USC, Section 502(f), was released from active duty in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) under the provisions of ANGI 36-101 (misconduct) and transferred to the State of Texas ANG.

On 2 Jun 99, the applicant applied to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) requesting appropriate military points for retirement purposes; promotion to master sergeant; back pay, with interest and entitlements; the narrative reason on his DD Form 214 be changed; early retirement or reinstatement for the remainder of his enlistment; and, punitive and compensatory damages.  On 30 Nov 99, the AFBCMR considered and partially granted the applicant's request (refer to the Record of Proceedings (ROP), Docket Number 99‑01489, at Exhibit B.

Information extracted from applicant’s initial AFBCMR appeal reveals that the 4 Sep 97 letter of notification, recommending the applicant’s administrative separation from the TXANG and Reserve of the Air Force, was withdrawn.  The applicant was subsequently offered an E-6 Active Guard Reserve (AGR) position at Ellington Field, TX.  He was promoted through the AFBCMR process to the grade of master sergeant (E‑7), with an effective date and date of rank of 1 Nov 97.

On 31 May 01, the applicant was relieved from his assignment under the provisions of AFI 36-3209 (Retirement - Active Guard Reserve (AGR)) and honorably discharged from the TXANG.  On 1 Jun 01, he was transferred to the Air Force Reserve and his name was placed on the Reserve Retired List.  He had completed a total of 20 years, 11 months and 29 days of satisfactory Federal service.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPAT recommends the application be denied.  DPPAT stated that although the applicant may or may not have attended school or sought loans while on active duty, such action was not directly tied to the issues in his previous AFBCMR application (Docket Number 99-01489).  The applicant made a conscious choice to obtain education loans and enroll in school during the time he was separated from the Air National Guard.  The applicant does not show evidence of any attempt to seek student financial aid through means other than loans.  Although the applicant is not eligible for GI Bill benefits (they expired in Dec 85), he could have sought financial assistance through grants, scholarships and state programs.  The applicant did not present evidence of the loans or their amounts.  The repayment of education loans--especially those for dropped courses--voluntarily obtained by the applicant does not seem to be an entitlement that qualifies for repayment by the Federal Government.  If the Board approves the applicant’s request, DPPAT recommends the Board ascertain the amount of loans, ensure the applicant’s enrollment in school and ensure payment is made directly to the lender.

The HQ AFPC/DPPAT evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and indicated that, in Jan 94, he utilized the Hazlewood Act while attending a community college.  In the spring of 1995, he began the pursuit of a Bachelor’s Degree, utilizing grants to fund the beginning phase of his degree plan.  Shortly thereafter, he was refused grants because of his earnings and was referred to the Base Education Office.  Through the Base Education Office, he was granted 15 hours per calendar year of educational benefits.  During this time, he was transferred to Fort Bliss, TX, and was scheduled to receive financial assistance while attending El Paso Community College and the University of Texas at El Paso.  Upon erroneously being separated from active duty status, his pay was terminated, which meant he had to drop the courses he was taking and move back to his home of record.  He therefore was not going to be able to finish the semester and the job situation was moot with the type of DD Form 214 he was given.    As soon as he was able to draw unemployment, the only option he had to complete his education was through the school loan program.  When he used the Hazlewood Act in 1994, he was under the impression that it could only be used once.

To insinuate that the military should have no responsibility regarding this matter is absurd because if it weren’t for the unit commander he would not have to file any actions for reimbursement.  He does not want the money, he would like the payment sent to the lender.  He is requesting the amount for 30 hours in which he would have been entitled to for the period of time that he was off active duty fighting for reinstatement.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

Pursuant to the Boards request, the applicant provided copies of his loan statements.  The applicant is seeking to have the loans paid that were incurred during the time he was erroneously separated from active duty (two consecutive years before the AFBCMR corrected his record and he was reinstated on active duty).  The loan periods were 9/97 through 1/99.  He was released from active duty on 7 Aug 97 and reinstated on 15 Aug 99 and graduated in May 00.  He is not seeking monies for personal use and prefers that all monies be directed to the loan guarantor.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments is at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the following advisory opinion is provided concerning the educational benefits the applicant would have been entitled to while in an active duty status.

HQ AFPC/DPPAT stated that, while serving on extended active duty in an Active Guard Reserve (AGR) status, the applicant was eligible to participate in an active duty component’s Tuition Assistance (TA) program.  Or, as a TX veteran, he could have taken advantage of the State’s Hazlewood Act benefit.  The applicant indicated in his 11 Apr 92 letter that he received Army TA (when stationed at Ft. Bliss) for the Fall 1977 semester.  Had he not been separated from active duty, the TA program would have paid up to $187.50 per semester hour for tuition and fees; the applicant would have paid all required costs above this amount.  There was no state-supported TX ANG TA program during the years the applicant attended school.  The Hazlewood Act exempts users at TX state colleges or universities from paying tuition and certain fees and is available to active duty personnel as well as veterans.  The applicant could have used the benefit while attending Sam Houston State University (SHSU).  DPPAT stated that the disclosure statement and repayment schedule submitted by the applicant shows his loans were consolidated.  DPPAT recommends the applicant provide the Board with copies of promissory notes and disbursement statements from EDUCAID/AFSA, the original lender.  These documents will detail the amounts paid to SHSU and when, as well as the original interest amount.  The loans now include additional interest resulting from the consolidation.  The HQ AFPC/DPPAT evaluation is at Exhibit G.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the additional Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 20 September 2002 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit H).
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case.  However, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office (HQ AFPC/DPPAT) that, the disclosure statement and repayment schedules the applicant submitted contain additional interest payments resulting from the consolidation of his loans; therefore, it was suggested that he submit promissory notes and disbursement statements from the original lender, which would specify the amounts paid to the Sam Houston State University (SHSU) and the dates, as well as the original interest amount.  Noting that the suggested documents were not submitted, the applicant was given another opportunity to provide the cited documents; however, as of this date, no additional evidence has been submitted.  In view of the foregoing, we find that insufficient evidence has been provided upon which to favorably consider this application.  Should the applicant provide sufficient evidence to substantiate expenses up to the amount he would have been reimbursed by Tuition Assistance, the Board may be willing to reconsider his appeal.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.
_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 9 January 2003 and 6 February 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number 02-00310.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Jan 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAT, dated 19 Mar 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Apr 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter from Applicant, dated 11 Apr 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit F.  Letter from Applicant, dated 7 Aug 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAT, dated 9 Sep 02.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Sep 02