MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            2 December 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028329

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Sherri V. Ward		Chairperson	
	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		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 Loan Repayment Program (LRP).

APPLICANT STATES:  That she was told on the date of her enlistment into the Army Delayed Entry Program (DEP) that she could enlist for the Montgomery G.I. Bill since she didn’t have her student loans with her at that time, and her enlistment option would be changed to the LRP when she reported for enlistment into the Regular Army.  However, when she reported for entry on active duty her guidance counselor had departed on a permanent change of station and the new guidance counselor who was processing her told her that she could not have both a cash bonus and the LRP.

In support of her request she submits an affidavit from her original guidance counselor who confirms the applicant’s story.  She also submits a memorandum from the Army Recruiting Command (USAREC) which states that she was, in fact, entitled to the LRP. 

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

The applicant enlisted in the DEP on 12 February 1997 and into the Regular Army on 31 March 1997.  She enlisted for the MGIB and a $6,000.00 cash bonus.  She initialed the block in her contract which specifically stated that she was not enlisting for the LRP.

In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) who stated that the applicant was not entitled to both a cash bonus and the LRP.  The PERSCOM also submitted a DCSPER message to substantiate her lack of eligibility, a message which shows that effective 5 March 1997 the applicant’s military occupational specialty (MOS) was authorized a $4,000.00 cash bonus but the MOS was not linked with the LRP.  The applicant was furnished a copy of this advisory opinion and was given the opportunity to submit matters in her own behalf.  She did not respond.

The staff of the Board found it necessary to contact the PERSCOM for further clarification.  The PERSCOM stated that the governing date on eligibility for enlistment incentives is the date of enlistment into the Regular Army, not the DEP.  However, prior to the effective date of the DCSPER message, 5 March 1997, the applicant’s MOS was not entitled to either a bonus or the LRP.

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.  This case is complicated by the contradictory evidence provided to the Board.  Both the statement provided by the applicant’s guidance counselor and the USAREC memorandum indicates that the applicant was in fact entitled to the LRP and cash bonus.  However, the PERSCOM has submitted a conflicting opinion and has authenticated its position with a copy of the DCSPER message which established LRP and cash bonus entitlements.

2.  After careful consideration, the Board must consider the PERSCOM advisory opinion as correct, since that opinion includes the policy message which established cash bonus and LRP eligibility.

3.  While it is unclear what written authority, if any, the applicant’s guidance counselor based his misstatement to the applicant concerning her entitlement to both the cash bonus and the LRP, that misinformation by her guidance counselor does not constitute an entitlement to the LRP.  

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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_svw____  _vbc____  _bje_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028329	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19991202	
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.