MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

           BOARD DATE:             5 April 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR1999018856

	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. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his student loans be paid under the provisions of the Student Loan Repayment Program (SLRP).

APPLICANT STATES:  His unit’s operations sergeant erroneously had him sign a SLRP addendum on a date other than the date he reenlisted.  That error has resulted in his SLRP addendum being considered invalid.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 November 1984, incurring an 8-year statutory military service obligation, was awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS) of infantryman, and was promoted to pay grade E-3.  On 23 July 1985 he accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, for being disrespectful toward a superior noncommissioned officer.  He completed his enlistment and was honorably released from active duty and transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) on 20 November 1987.

On 19 December 1987 the applicant was assigned to a USAR unit.  

On 22 November 1988 he enlisted in the ARNG for 5 years in pay grade E-3.  He enlisted for training as a unit supply clerk, MOS 76Y.  He was promoted to pay grade E-4 but was reduced in grade to E-3 due to inefficiency on 5 January 1990.  On 15 August 1990 he was discharged from the ARNG for unsatisfactory participation and transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement).  His separation documents show that his primary MOS was a unit supply specialist and his secondary MOS was an infantryman.

On 29 October 1990 he was transferred from the USAR Control Group to a USAR unit.

On 4 October 1991 a military police incident/complaint report was prepared on the arrest of the applicant by the military police for abusive language, disturbing the peace, criminal trespass, and violation of a security order.

On 15 January 1992 he reenlisted for 6 years in the USAR in pay grade E-3.  On 26 February 1992 he was issued a Notice of Basic Eligibility (NOBE) for the Montgomery G.I. Bill (MGIB).

On 23 July 1993 he was involuntarily transferred from his USAR unit to the USAR Control Group (reinforcement) due to his unsatisfactory performance during annual training.

On 9 July 1995 he executed a SLRP enlistment contract addendum.  However, the space for the MOS which supposedly qualified the applicant for the SLRP was left blank on that addendum.
On 6 August 1995 he reenlisted in the USAR for 6 years in pay grade E-4 (there are no orders in his OMPF assigning him to the unit from the USAR Control Group after his previous transfer from his unit due to unsatisfactory performance of duty).

Army Regulation 140-111, Table 2-3, states that a reservist may not reenlist prior to a 3-month “window” of his or her expiration of term of service (ETS).  Paragraph 9-3 of this regulation provides an exception to this 3-month window.  This exception is for reenlisting reservists to establish MGIB eligibility.  The reservist must have less than 3 years remaining on his or her enlistment.

Army Regulation 135-7, Incentive Programs, chapter 5.1, Student Loan Repayment Program, restricts the SLRP to those reservists who either enlist or reenlist for a skill or unit approved by the Department.  This educational incentive may only be elected at the time of enlistment or reenlistment, as the SLRP contract is an addendum to the reservist’s enlistment/reenlistment contract.  This incentive pays a limited sum of money to a lending institution on the anniversary date of an enlistment or reenlistment.  These payments continue on a yearly basis unless the soldier loses eligibility by being separated from his or her unit.

Army Regulation 135-178 paragraph 9-7 provides for the discharge of a reservist when it was discovered that his enlistment or reenlistment would not have occurred had the relevant facts been known by the Government or had appropriate regulations been followed.  However, this paragraph also provides for the retention of a reservist in exceptionally meritorious cases.

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

1.  The applicant’s 6 August 1995 reenlistment appears to be erroneous since it was not executed within the 3-month reenlistment window prescribed by Army Regulation 140-111.  

2.  Since the reenlistment contract which is the basis for the disputed SLRP addendum is invalid, the SLRP addendum must also be invalid.

3.  In view of the preceding conclusions, there is no reason to consider the disparity of dates between the applicant’s reenlistment contract and his SLRP addendum.

4.  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.

NOTE:  The Commander, Army Reserve Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM) will be requested to evaluate the applicant’s 6 August 1995 reenlistment to determine whether it is erroneous and, if found to be erroneous, to take the appropriate administrative measures.  

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_rvo_____  __sk______  ___le _  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999018856	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000405	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	128.05	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.