MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:         

	BOARD DATE:              25 January 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:      AR2000044819

	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. Walter Avery, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. June Hajjar 		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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 his records be corrected to reflect that he enlisted for the Student Loan Repayment Program (SLRP).  The applicant enlisted for the Regular Army.  The SLRP is a US Army Reserve (USAR) enlistment incentive.  The Board believes the applicant is referring to the Loan Repayment Plan (LRP) which is a similar Regular Army enlistment incentive.  The Board will only address the LRP.

APPLICANT STATES: That when he enlisted in the Regular Army he was refused the LRP benefit because he had prior service.  The prior service was primarily from service during Desert Storm.  He believes an exception should be made in his case.

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

A DD Form 214 (separation document) reflects that he was a member of the USAR, was trained as a 76C (Equipment Records and Parts Specialist), achieved the rank of specialist, entered active duty on 20 September 1990, and served in Southwest Asia from 30 October 1990 to 5 June 1991 (a period over 288 days).  He was honorably separated 7 July 1991 for Expiration Term of Service, was given separation program designator LBK and reentry code of “00”.

On 29 March 1994 the applicant enlisted for the Regular Army for a period of 4 years for military occupational skill 27M (Multiple Launch Rocket System Repairman).  The applicant signed DA Form 3286-67 (Statement of Understanding) which indicates he was not enlisted for the Montgomery GI Bill, the Army College Fund or the LRP.

A DD Form 214 (separation document) reflects that he was honorably separated from the Regular Army on 21 March 1997 for Disability with Severance Pay, was given separation program designator JFL and reentry code of “3”.

Army Regulation 621-202 (Army Educational Incentives and Entitlements) establishes the policies and provisions for administration of the LRP.           Public Law 99-145, section 2171 authorizes the LRP.  The LRP is an enlistment incentive designed to increase Test Score Category l-IIIA accessions.

Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program) establishes the eligibility criteria governing the enlistment of persons, with or without prior service.  It provides the definition for nonprior service (NPS). Persons previously separated from any component of the Armed Forces with less than 180 days on active duty are identified as NPS for enlistment purposes.

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.  The regulation governing the LRP directly addresses the contention of the applicant.  The USAR is a component of the Armed Forces.  The applicant had over 180 days of active service, which meant he could no longer be considered NPS for enlistment purposes.  The Board recognizes that it was the applicant’s service in Southwest Asia that was the primary cause of his accumulating over 180 days.  The Board sympathizes with the applicant, but finds no option, but to adhere to the applicable law and regulations in this matter.  After reviewing the evidence, the Board concludes the applicant was properly denied the LRP.

2.  The Regular Army has an interest in establishing a standard to clarify if a person desiring entry in to the Regular Army should be considered as a person with no prior military service, that is a raw recruit.  The applicant by his service is now a veteran making him ineligible for enlistment incentives designed to encourage NPS persons to enlist.

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

____jh __  ____kah _  ___le___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000044819	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010125	
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.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.