MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           21 November 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000043007

	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:

	Mr. Thomas A. Pagan 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able 		Member	
	Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughnessy 		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, that the Army reimburse him for his student loans.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was not counseled concerning the specific types of loans that the government would pay prior to his enlistment.  Both his recruiter and the personnel at the Phoenix MEPS (Military Entrance Processing Station) neglected to inform him that his loan, in dispute, might not be paid by the government, even after looking at his loan documents.  As a civilian entering the Army, he could not be expected to know what rules or conditions governed the repayment, because he was never told.  He repeatedly questioned both parties and was assured that the government would pay all his college student loans.  He submits a copy of his enlistment contract stating that the Army would pay his loan, but which he says does not provide a breakdown of those loans.  He also submits a copy of the loan documents he presented, which he states that he was told would be paid by the Army.  He questions why a graduate student with a four year degree would enter into a six year contract, with no other incentives, unless he was assured that all his loans would be repaid.   

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

The applicant enlisted in the Army for six years in pay grade E-4 on                      8 August 1999.  He enlisted in the Army training enlistment program (for training as a medical laboratory specialist), and the Army incentive enlistment program, a loan repayment program (LRP) up to $65,000.00.  As part of his enlistment contract, he stated that he understood that under the LRP the government would repay a designated portion of any loan that he incurred that was made, insured or guaranteed, under Part B of the Higher Education Act of 1975 (Guaranteed Student Loan) or any loan under Part E of such act (National Direct Student Loan) after 1 October 1975 and before he enlisted into the Regular Army.  

Included with his application is a copy of an application and promissory note made through the Norwest Collegiate Loan Program on 18 June 1998 in the amount of $4400.00.    

In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) Education Incentives and Counseling Branch.  The chief of that branch stated that Public Law confirms that loans eligible for repayment must be made under Title IV, Part B, D, or E of the Higher Education Act of 1965, and that based on the documentation provided, the applicant’s loan did not qualify for repayment under the LRP.  She stated that the loan was made through the Norwest Collegiate Loan Program, that was not made, insured or guaranteed under the appropriate provisions of the 1965 Higher Education Act, that there was no exception to the law, and payment could not be made toward his student loan.  She recommended that the applicant’s request be denied.
In his rebuttal to the advisory opinion, the applicant stated that the issue was not whether his loan qualified or did not qualify for repayment, but that no one told him that his loan would not qualify.  He stated that his recruiter and the MEPS personnel should know which loans would or would not qualify for repayment.  He trusted their judgment.  He again indicated that a college graduate would not enter into a six year contract without any other incentive unless he was told all his loans would be paid, and nothing to the contrary.   

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, it is concluded:

1.  The loan that the applicant wants the Army to repay is a loan made by Norwest Bank South Dakota directly to him, and does not qualify for repayment under the loan repayment program.  This loan was not made, insured, or guaranteed under the applicable provisions of the Higher Education Act.  This, the applicant does not dispute.   

2.  The applicant’s contention, however, that responsible personnel did not counsel him or inform him that his loan would not or might not be paid by the government; or that those responsible personnel assured him that all his loans would be repaid by the government; is not supported by any evidence, or any information, other than the applicant’s own statements.  There is no evidence, nor has the applicant provided any, to show that he was ill informed, misinformed, or misled.  

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

4.  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 this requirement.

5.  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

___teo___  __rwa___  __tap___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000043007	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20001121	
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	112.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.