MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            13 January 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999027495

	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. Ernest M. Willcher		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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 at the $20,000.00 level instead of the $10,000.00 level.

APPLICANT STATES:  That there was not a $10,000.00 limit on his initial Student Loan Repayment Program (SLRP) addendum.

In support of his application he submits a letter from the US Army Reserve Command (USARC) to his elected representative.  In that letter the USARC stated that the applicant initially enlisted for a $10,000.00 maximum SLRP benefit.  As such, the SLRP addendum for $20,000.00 he completed with his 1997 reenlistment was not valid.

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

He enlisted in the USAR with no prior service in pay grade E-3 on 9 March 1989.  In conjunction with that enlistment he completed an SLRP addendum.  In Section V. Entitlement of that addendum, paragraph 3, it stated in part “The amount of the loan(s) (not to exceed $10,000.00 when totaled) . . .”

On 12 January 1997 the applicant immediately reenlisted in the USAR in pay grade E-5.  In conjunction with that reenlistment he completed a bonus addendum for $2,500.00, a Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) educational assistance addendum, and an SLRP addendum for up to $20,000.00 in loan repayment.

Army Regulation 135-7, Chapter 5.1, states that “Once a dollar amount of $10,000.00 is established for the SLRP, it cannot be increased to $20,000.00 during the soldier’s career.”

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.  Contrary to the applicant’s contention, he clearly signed an SLRP addendum for $10,000.00 when he enlisted in 1989.

2.  Since the applicant had an existing SLRP addendum for $10,000.00, he was not entitled to reenlist for the higher $20,000.00 amount.

3.  While it is certainly unfortunate that a mistake was made in offering him the higher SLRP amount, such errors do occur and are provided for by regulation.  The applicant could have elected immediate discharge due to his defective enlistment incentive.  However, if he had done that he would have lost a prorated portion of his $2,500.00 bonus and his MGIB.

4.  To grant the applicant’s request would be giving him a benefit not provided to other reservists which would not be just or equitable.

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

_emw____  _ewl____  _mvt____  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Board Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999027495	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000113	
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.	128.04	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.