MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            19 January 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999026702

	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. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. John P. Infante		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 she be given the $20,000.00 level Student Loan Repayment Program as she was promised.

APPLICANT STATES:  That she was told by both her unit retention NCO and her reserve support command that she was entitled to the $20,000.00 SLRP.

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

She enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years on 21 January 1988, was awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS) of voice interceptor, and was promoted to pay grade E-5.  She was honorably released from active duty on 20 January 1992.

The next entry in the applicant’s military records is her immediate reenlistment for her own position in a USAR unit for 6 years on 14 January 1998.  At that time she completed addenda to her reenlistment contract which showed that she would be entitled to $20,000.00 in SLRP based on her holding a military occupational specialty (MOS) which was approved by the Department for the higher incentive amount.

Army Regulation 135-178 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of reserve enlisted personnel.  Chapter 9 provides for individuals who were promised a benefit in conjunction with their enlistment or reenlistment which the Army cannot honor.  These individuals have the option of either requesting immediate discharge or waiving the benefit and remaining in the USAR.

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.  Since the applicant did not enlist for a skill which was approved for the $20,000.00 SLRP, she was not entitled to that level incentive.

2.  While it is certainly unfortunate that a mistake was made in offering her the higher level SLRP, such errors do occur and are provided for by regulation.  The applicant could have elected immediate discharge due to her defective enlistment incentive.  

3.  To grant the applicant’s request would be in contravention of the Congressional intent of the incentive program as a whole, to use incentives to fill critically short skills or units.

4.  In addition, a soldier can only enlist once for the SLRP, but may receive unused SLRP benefits if he or she immediately reenlists.  It is evident that the applicant’s military records are missing a reenlistment based on the time which transpired between her Regular Army enlistment and her reenlistment in her USAR unit.  It is possible that she completed an SLRP addendum at that time, and, if she had contracted for the $10,000.00 SLRP, she would not have been eligible to later contract for the higher SLRP amount.

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

__rvo____  _clg_____  __jpi____  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Board Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999026702	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000119	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	128.05	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.