PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            26 October 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000037457

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Melinda M. Darby		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. William D. Powers		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A -  Application for correction of military 
                              records
	Exhibit B -  Military Personnel Records (including
	                  advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests, in effect, that Department of the Army (DA) uphold the Student Loan Repayment Program (SLRP) portion of her enlistment contract. 

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that she was denied the SLRP due to an error on the part of her recruiter.  She was informed over four years after her enlistment contract was prepared that even though this contract indicated she was entitled to the SLRP, her military occupational specialty (MOS) was not on the DA list that authorized the SLRP benefit and therefore she did not qualify for benefits under the program.  

4.  The applicant’s military records show that on 27 January 1994, she enlisted in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) for eight years.  The evidence or record includes the enlistment contract documents prepared on her at the time of her initial enlistment in the USAR.

5.  A DA Form 5261-R (Student Loan Repayment Program-Addendum) contained in the record confirms the SLRP contractual agreement entered into by the applicant and the Army at the time of her enlistment.  Section II of the form contains instructions and states, in pertinent part, that the service representative (recruiter) is responsible for reading and explaining the requirements outlined for receipt of the SLRP benefit.  

6.  Section III (Acknowledgement) contains the applicant’s acknowledgement that she was contracting for completion of initial active duty for training and qualification in MOS 71L (Administrative Specialist), which Headquarters, DA had approved for a maximum of $10,000 in loan repayments.  Section V (Entitlement) indicated that the applicant understood that the SLRP applied to her in the form of a maximum repayment of $10,000 during her military career and that the amount repaid each year would not exceed 15% of the outstanding balance of her student loans. 

7.  Section VIII (Certification by Service Representative) of the SLRP addendum contained the signature of the applicant’s recruiter.  The recruiter certified that he witnessed the reading and signing of the SLRP agreement and attested to the fact that the signature on the document was that of the applicant.  He also confirmed that he had verified that the applicant met the regulatory eligibility requirements for the SLRP and that the MOS she was enlisting for was currently eligible for the designated portion authorized for loan repayment shown in Section III.  

8.  On 1 May 1998, the applicant’s request for a SLRP payment benefit was denied by the Supervisor of the SLRP Team at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin.  The reason given for the denial was that the MOS contained on the SLRP addendum to the applicant’s enlistment contract was not on a DA approved MOS list.  The applicant was advised that she could request an exception to policy from the Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM) if she so desired. 

9.  On 29 April 1999, the applicant submitted an exception to policy to ARPERSCOM requesting that she be provided SLRP benefits.  In this request she indicated that the SLRP was used to induce her to enlist and her enlistment contract verifies that at the time she enlisted she believed that she qualified for the program.  She further commented that she relied on the truthfulness of the advice she received from her recruiter, who had assured her that she was qualified for the SLRP when she enlisted for training as a 71L.  She concludes by indicating that she should not be punished because her recruiter made an error and requested that she be provided the SLRP benefits that she enlisted for.  The ARPERSCOM reply is not on file.  

10  On 16 December 1999, the Chief of the Retention and Transition Office, 
96th Regional Support Command, Salt Lake City, Utah submitted a second request for an exception to policy pertaining to the applicant’s SLRP benefits.  This request indicates, in effect, that the applicant’s enlistment documents indicate she was entitled to the SLRP and even though her MOS was not on the DA list they requested she be granted an exception to policy and be provided the SLRP benefit she agreed to upon her enlistment.  

11.  On 6 January 2000, the Chief Support Division, ARPERSCOM replied to the applicant in response to a Congressional inquiry.  This letter advised the applicant that unfortunately her request for an exception to policy in order to receive SLRP benefits was disapproved by the Chief, Army Reserve.  The reason cited for the denial was that her MOS was not listed as eligible for the SLRP when she executed her enlistment contract.  The applicant was advised that she could apply to this Board for relief if she still believed that this decision was unjust. 

12.  Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program) prescribes eligibility criteria governing the enlistment of persons, with or without prior service (PS), into the Regular Army (RA) and the USAR.  Chapter 9 (Enlistment Programs/Options) contains guidance on available enlistment programs and options and indicates that these programs/options are designed to merge valid Army requirements with personal desires.  

13.  Chapter 9 states, in pertinent part, that recruiting personnel must ensure that persons applying for specific options are informed of the precise nature of commitment; the extent to which specific option will satisfy applicant's personal desires; and that persons accepted for specific options possess the prescribed prerequisites necessary to meet performance standards of the Army.  

14.  Table 9-4 contains specific guidance on the SLRP and outlines the prerequisites that must be met in order to qualify for the SLRP in connection with an enlistment and states, in pertinent part, that a member must choose an MOS that is authorized by DA to receive the SLRP.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board concedes that the applicant’s enlistment MOS was not on the approved DA list authorizing SLRP benefits at the time of her enlistment; however, finds this is not the overriding factor in this case.

2.  A careful review of the evidence or record reveals that the SLRP addendum to the applicant’s enlistment contract clearly established a contractual agreement, between the applicant and the Army, that she would receive SLRP benefits in connection with her enlistment for training in MOS 71L.  

3.  Section VIII of the SLRP addendum confirms that the applicant’s recruiter certified that she was eligible for participation in the SLRP and that her enlistment MOS was on the DA approved list authorizing this option.  

4.  By regulation, a recruiter is obligated to ensure that persons accepted for specific enlistment options possess the prescribed prerequisites necessary to meet performance standards of the Army.  In this case, the recruiter obviously failed to meet this regulatory responsibility as evidenced by the SLRP addendum contained in the record.  

5.  Notwithstanding the Chief, Army Reserve finding that the applicant was ineligible for SLRP benefits because her MOS was not on an approved DA list, the Board finds relief is warranted in this case.  

6.  In the interest of justice and equity, the Board concludes that it would be appropriate to honor the applicant’s enlistment contract and to provide her the benefits agreed to in the SLRP addendum, as an exception to policy, as if her MOS were on the DA SLRP list at the time of her enlistment.  

7.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned is entitled to receive the SLRP benefits that were agreed to at the time of her enlistment as codified on the SLRP addendum to her enlistment contract, as an exception to policy. 

BOARD VOTE:  

__mmd __  ___ao___  __wdp__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		____Melinda M. Darby_____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000037457	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/10/26	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	N/A	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	N/A	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	N/A	
DISCHARGE REASON	N/A	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  1018	103.0100	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.