MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:           7 September 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000035070

	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	
	Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi 		Chairperson	
	Mr.  Walter T. Morrison 		Member	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III		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:  In effect, the Army reimburse her for payments she made on her $700.00 Perkins loan.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That the Azusa Pacific University refused to give her a deferment on her Perkins loan; therefore, she has been paying the loan.  The loan has been repaid; however, the Army only paid one third of the loan.  

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

The applicant enlisted in the Army for five years on 8 October 1997.  She enlisted for a loan repayment program incentive.

A statement of her account from the Academic Financial Services Association (AFSA), Azusa Pacific University, reflecting activity through 31 January 1997 shows that the applicant had a Perkins loan in the amount of $700.00 and that her account was deferred through June 1997.  Her grace period was extended and her first bill would be due on 1 April 1998.

On 10 March 1998 the applicant, then a member of a military unit in Monterey, California, requested a deferment of her Perkins loan beginning in October 1997 through October 2002.  Her request was certified by her commanding officer.  

On 6 April 1998 the AFSA Data Corporation informed her that her Perkins loan was not eligible for military privileges, and that payments in the amount of $40.00, including interest, were due on the first of each month, with the next payment due on 1 May 1998.

On 11 June 1999 Azusa Pacific University notified the applicant that her Perkins student loan was paid in full.

In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief of the Education Incentives at the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM).  That official stated, in effect, that requests for deferment or forbearance of a loan are not within the purview of the Army, and were the sole responsibility of the borrower.  She went on to say that the Army does not assume an individual’s loan, i.e., the individual remains responsible for payment of the loan.  Public law precludes the Army from payment of interest on a loan, and precludes the Army from reimbursing a soldier for payments a soldier made on a loan.

The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion on 7 March 2000 for her information and possible rebuttal.  She failed to respond.

Information obtained from the Chief of Education Incentives on 30 August 2000 revealed that the applicant also had a Stafford loan in the amount of $17,125.00, two-thirds of which has been paid by the Army, and the other third in the process of being paid.  The Army has also paid a total of $441.94, in two payments, on her $700.00 Perkins loan; however, that official reiterated that the law does not allow the Army to reimburse a soldier for payments that a soldier made to a lending institution for that loan.

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

1.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of her request.   

2.  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.

3.  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

___cla___  ___wtm__  ___tbr___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000035070	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000907	
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.  1026	128.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.