MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF.

	BOARD DATE:            11 July 2000      
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999029259

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson	
	Mr. John Saputo		Member	
	Mr. Roger Able		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:  Correction of her military records in such a way to allow her to receive benefits under the Student Loan Repayment Program (SLRP).  In support of her request she submits a self-authored statement, a copy of her DD Form 5261-4-R (Student Loan Repayment Program Addendum) and copies of her applications for repayment of student loans initiated in May 1997.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that she has tried to resolve the question of her entitlement to payment of her student loans under the SLRP but has been unable to do so.  She notes she was told that the retention noncommissioned officer (NCO) prepared “the documents incorrectly” but because that NCO was no longer in the Individual Ready Reserve “the matter could not be resolved.”  She states that subsequently she has transferred between several units and in each case the assigned retention NCO has been unable to assist her.  She indicates that she is “in the computer system to have this loan paid, however because of a cliché it is not being paid.”

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

She initially entered the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) in September 1984 and performed duties in the administrative field (71L) until September 1992 when she assumed duties as a civil affairs sergeant (38A) with the 450th Civil Affairs Battalion in Riverdale, Maryland.

On 2 February 1994 the applicant reenlisted in the USAR for a period of 6 years. Her reenlistment contract notes that this was an “immediate reenlistment” in a Troop Program Unit and that her primary military occupational specialty (PMOS) was 7lL (administrative specialist).  Her reenlistment contract contains the applicant’s initials on page 3 of the contract indicating that “an Addendum has been completed, signed by the applicant, and attached hereto.”  However, there is no 2 February 1994 addendum contained in the applicant’s file and the entry does not identify the addendum which was supposedly attached to the contract.

At the time of the applicant’s February 1994 reenlistment her records indicate that she was performing duties as a civil affairs sergeant (38A), one of her alternate MOS’s.  On 9 September 1994, however, the applicant returned to duties in her PMOS (71L) and was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 5th PSYOP Battalion.

The applicant continued to work in her PMOS until 1 November 1995 when she was reassigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 11th PSYOP Battalion and assumed duties as a “PSYOP” sergeant (MOS 37F).  

On 5 November 1995, just 4 days after she assumed duties as a PSYOP sergeant, the applicant executed a DD Form 5261-4-R.  The addendum, signed by the applicant and the 11th PSYOP Battalion retention NCO on 5 November 1995, authorizes the applicant a maximum of $10,000.00 in student loan repayment.  She also acknowledged that entitlement to any student loan repayments would terminate if she moved “to an ineligible MOS” or failed “to become MOS qualified within 12 months, if required to perform on-the-job training or within 24 months if required to attend a service school….”  There is no indication in available records that she was ever awarded MOS 37F as an authorized specialty.  However, in 1996 she completed phase one and two of the PSYOP specialist course.

In October 1997 the applicant returned to duties in MOS 38A and in March 1998 she resumed duties in her PMOS, 71L, with Headquarters, 6th Brigade at Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

Army Regulation 135-7 states that the Government will repay a designated portion of specific outstanding loans for soldiers who enlist, reenlist, immediately reenlist, or extend on or after 1 January 1992 to serve in an MOS authorized by Headquarter Department of the Army (HQDA) for the SLRP incentive.  It notes specifically, that the DA Form 5261-4-R must be made by the person when he or she signs a Selected Reserve contractual agreement.  A Selected Reserve contractual agreement is executed when a person enlists, reenlists, immediately reenlists, or extends in the Selected Reserve of the Army.  The SLRP incentive is one of several incentives which “serve as an extraordinary measure to assist the Army National Guard and USAR in meeting and sustaining manpower requirements.”

Telephonic information received from the U.S. Army Reserve Command at Fort McPherson, Georgia indicated that MOS 38A was authorized by HQDA for the SLRP incentive at the time the applicant reenlisted in February 1994.  MOS 37F was authorized for the incentive at the time the applicant assumed duties as a PSYOP sergeant in November 1995.  MOS 71L was never authorized for the SLRP incentive during any of the periods in question.

Telephonic information received by a member of the Board’s staff from officials at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin indicated that it appeared that the reason the applicant’s SLRP incentive had never been activated was because the addendum and reenlistment contract were executed on two different dates.

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

1.  There is no evidence that the applicant was entitled to the SLRP incentive at the time she reenlisted in February 1994.  While her reenlistment contract indicates that an addendum was attached to the contract there is no indication or evidence that establishes what that addendum was.  Had the applicant contracted, in February 1994, for the SLRP based on her duty MOS of 38A she would have lost entitlement when she returned to duties in her PMOS (71L) just 
7 months later.  The change in the applicant’s duties and the absence of any February 1994 addendum tends to support the conclusion that the applicant was not authorized the SLRP incentive at the time of her February 1994 reenlistment.

2.  The Board notes that the applicant executed the SLRP addendum just 4 days after assuming duties as a 37F.  It is possible that the retention NCO presumed that because the applicant had reenlisted in February 1994 and 37F was authorized the SLRP incentive that she could participate in the program merely by executing the addendum.  Unfortunately regulatory requirements precluded such action.

3.  Based on available evidence there appears to be no evidence of error or injustice in the applicant’s file.  She apparently reenlisted in February 1994 without benefit of the SLRP incentive and subsequently, in November 1995, completed a SLRP addendum believing that she was then eligible for the incentive.

4.  There is no evidence that any of her student loans have been repaid under the SLRP and there is no evidence that the SLRP was the incentive that prompted her to reenlist in February 1994.  The evidenced indicates the applicant reenlisted for a period of 6 years in 1994 and the SLRP was not the “extraordinary measure” necessary to “assist the Army National Guard and USAR in meeting and sustaining manpower requirements” in this particular case. As such, while it is certainly unfortunate, no injustice has arisen because the Army has not reaped any benefits based on a “promised” incentive that did not materialize.

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy that requirement.

6.  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

____rjw_  ___js___  ___ra___  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999029259	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000711	
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.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.