MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:           27 AUGUST 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002066591

	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. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyi		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 the Army reimburse him for payments he made on his student loans.

APPLICANT STATES:  That the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) should credit his account with $366.35.  The creditor for his student loan deducted that amount from his checking account because he did not file           DD Form 2475.  He incorrectly assumed that he was enrolled in the loan repayment program (LRP) when he enlisted.  He has since properly enrolled in the LRP and is entitled to the above amount. 

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

The applicant enlisted in the Army Reserve delayed entry program for eight years on 13 October 1999.  He was discharged from the delayed entry program upon his enlistment in the Regular Army for three years on 8 January 2000.  His enlistment documents show that he enlisted for a $6000.00 cash bonus and that he also enlisted for the Student Loan Repayment Program for an amount up to $65,000.00.  

The record of military processing (DD Form 1966/3) contains two handwritten remarks at the bottom of that form, “All LRP paperwork sent to PERSCOM per AR 600-1,” and “Applicant advised to read AR 621-202.” 

On 10 September 2000 Sallie Mae Servicing notified the applicant that it had changed the payment terms for his Stafford loans.  That notification showed a payment schedule of 97 payments in the amount of $73.27 with the first payment due on 25 November 2000.  It also indicated that if he had automatic debit, they would debit his checking or savings account for the new payment amount next month.  

The applicant submits with his request five monthly statements from the First Merit Bank, N.A., in Akron, Ohio, each statement showing a withdrawal from his account of $73.27 to Sallie Mae, for a total of $366.35.  The date of the first withdrawal was 27 November 2000, the last withdrawal, 26 March 2001.

The Loan Repayment Program (LRP) is a special enlistment incentive that the Army offers to highly qualified applicants at the time of enlistment. Under the LRP, the Army will repay up to $65,000 of a soldier's qualifying student loans. 

Army Regulation 621-202 prescribes Army-unique policies, responsibilities, and procedures for the administration of education incentives authorized by law, to include the LRP.  Paragraph 3-3 of that regulation states that Army Recruiting Command personnel will forward to the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) copies of the applicant’s LRP contract, loan promissory note, DD Form 1966/1and DD Form 1966/4, DD Form 2366 (Montgomery GI Bill dis- enrollment), and a copy of the deferment letter sent to the lender.  Those personnel will assist soldiers awarded the LRP to secure a military deferment from the lender.     

Paragraph 3-4 states that the Army will not repay loans or portions of loans that are in default.  The Army will not repay delinquent payments, their interest, and associated charges, will not make payments to soldiers, and will not reimburse soldiers for payments made by them or any other individual.  

Paragraph 3-6 states in pertinent part that LRP soldiers earn the first loan repayment after completion of a full year of enlisted service.  The Army will make payments directly to the lender.  

Paragraph 3-9 states that PERSCOM forwards to the soldier an LRP packet that includes a letter of instruction, and a DD Form 2475 (DOD Educational Loan Repayment Program Annual Application).  The soldier follows the letter of instruction, completes section I of the DD Form 2475, forwards the form to the lender who completes the form and sends it to PERSCOM.  PERSCOM verifies the eligibility of the loan and prepares the paperwork for loan repayment. 

In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Total Army Personnel Command Education Incentives and Counseling Branch.  That branch recommended disapproval of the applicant’s request, stating that the law precludes the authorization of payments toward interest and the reimbursement of payments made, and that there were no exceptions.  It stated that when the applicant signed a contract for the LRP, he assumed personal responsibility for compliance with the criteria; and that the record of military processing indicated that he was advised to read Army Regulation 621-202, which specifically lists the LRP processing procedures.

In his rebuttal, the applicant stated that the opinion did not accurately describe the circumstances of his request, and did not serve to meet the Army’s objective of making the LRP a viable enlistment incentive.  He stated that the law did not preclude the agency from granting him some relief, and that the Army should attempt to fulfill its loan repayment promise to him.  He stated that the staff opinion relied on the information contained in the record of military processing, and that opinion was unfair, in that at the time he signed the document, he was completely untrained and had no idea what AR 621-202 was or where to find it.  He stated in effect that none of the processing procedures information was provided to him.  He also stated that the staff opinion failed to note that the record of military processing included the statement that all LRP paperwork would be sent to PERSCOM per AR 601-1; and that statement unfairly led him to believe that all the paperwork necessary for the LRP was already submitted. 

Information obtained from PERSCOM on 6 August 2002 reveals that PERSCOM forwarded an LRP packet to the applicant in October 2000 and that the information was returned to PERSCOM in May 2001.  The LRP packet includes a copy of DD Form 2475, with Section II completed by PERSCOM.  That section includes the telephone number of the Education Incentives and Counseling Branch at PERSCOM.  He was informed that he remained responsible for payment and the status of his loan, and that he would be authorized payment toward the remaining original unpaid principal on his qualifying student loans after each completed year of active duty.  He was also informed that the law precluded the authorization of payments toward interest or the reimbursement of payments made.      

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 Board accepts the applicant’s statements concerning the record of military processing.  An uninitiated enlistee would not be expected to know what an “AR” is or where to find it, either during his enlistment processing, or his training immediately following.  He could have rightly assumed that he was properly enrolled in the LRP – that he had no more to do; the Army would take care of his student loans.   

2.  Nonetheless, the applicant is not blameless.  He knew in September 2000 that Sallie Mae had set up a schedule for his loan payments.  In October PERSCOM notified him of what he had to do to have his loans satisfied by the Army.  He knew, upon receipt of the LRP packet, that the Army would not reimburse him for payments made.  He could have inquired and found out from PERSCOM that he could have obtained a deferment or forbearance from the lending agency.  He apparently did not.  He was, however, aware that Sallie Mae would debit money from his account; and he was also aware that the Army would not repay any amount debited.  
 
3.  There is no error in the applicant’s records, and there is no injustice.  The Army acted according to policy and set procedures, notifying the applicant of his responsibilities regarding the LRP.  He apparently did not question those procedures.  

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

5.  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.
6.  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

__INW __  __AAO __  ___TL___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002066591	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020827	
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.	103.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.