MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           22 August 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000042319

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Edward Williamson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin		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 paid the enlistment bonus she was promised.

APPLICANT STATES:  That the Oklahoma City Recruiting Battalion approved her enlistment bonus.  She discovered the error on 8 January 2000.  Supporting evidence is as listed on the DD Form 149.

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

She enlisted in the Army National Guard on 20 October 1989 and was discharged upon her expiration term of service on 19 October 1998.  

On 13 September 1999, the applicant enlisted in the U. S. Army Reserve (USAR) for 3 years.  She enlisted for the incentives prior-service enlistment bonus $2,500.00 and for the Student Loan Repayment Program (SLRP) not to exceed $10,000.00.

Army Regulation 135-7 establishes a single reference for incentives authorized within the Army National Guard and the USAR.  Chapter 2 provides that a cash bonus is offered to any-prior service person who meets all of 11 different eligibility criteria.  One of the criteria is if the last discharge was from the Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) or from the USAR and the applicant has been out of the military service for at least 12 months.

Army Regulation 135-178 establishes policies governing the administrative separation of enlisted soldiers from the ARNGUS and the USAR.  Chapter 9, section IV discusses defective enlistment or reenlistment agreements.  It states that an enlisted soldier will be discharged when a defective enlistment or reenlistment agreement exists under three circumstances.  One circumstance is when a material misrepresentation is made by recruiting or retention personnel on which the soldier reasonably relied and thereby was induced to enlist or reenlist with a commitment for which the soldier was not qualified.

On 8 August 2000, the Oklahoma City Recruiting Battalion acknowledged that their senior guidance counselor made a mistake and gave the applicant the prior service enlistment bonus and the SLRP.  She did not have a one-year break in service in order to qualify for the programs.

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.  A Government error was made when the applicant was told she qualified for the enlistment bonus incentive.  It appears she also was erroneously told that she qualified for the SLRP enlistment incentive.
2.  There is a regulatory remedy for correcting these errors and that is to request discharge for a defective enlistment agreement.  The applicant discovered at least one of the errors less than 4 months after her enlistment in the USAR.  If she did not also know about the SLRP error at that time she is now aware of it, less than 1 year after her enlistment.  It would be appropriate at this early date to deny the relief requested and to require the applicant to apply for the relief provided for by regulation.  In the event she does not desire to do so, her lack of action would be taken as her agreement to waive those two enlistment incentives.

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

__ew____  __mvt___  __kwl___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000042319	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000822	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	112.04	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.