PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           30 January 2003                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002071180

	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. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Walter T. Morrison 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser       		Member	
	Ms. Yolanda Maldonado		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 that her $20,000 Student Loan Repayment Program (SLRP) contract be honored as written. 

3.  The applicant states that she executed a SLRP addendum for $20,000, but later discovered that her military occupational specialty (MOS) was only authorized a $10,000 SLRP when she enlisted.  She has $14,500 in student loans and would like all of that amount paid under the SLRP.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that she enlisted in the Regular Army on 8 February 1990, was awarded the MOS of preventive medicine specialist, and was promoted to pay grade E-4.  On 3 January 1995, she was honorably released from active duty due to unsatisfactory performance and transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement).

5.  On 10 August 1997, she enlisted in the US Army Reserve (USAR) for 6 years.  In conjunction with her enlistment, she executed a $20,000 SLRP addendum.  She was given the higher $20,000 SLRP (normal SLRP is $10,000) because she held an MOS which was presumably on the list of critical skills published by Department of the Army.

6.  On 24 January 2002, the applicant’s commander submitted a request for an exception to policy to pay the applicant her $20,000 SLRP.  In that request, her commander stated that the applicant was given the $20,000 SLRP because the recruiter used the list which showed which MOS’s were approved for the $20,000 SLRP in 1996.  However, since the applicant enlisted in 1997, that list was no longer valid.  The 1997 list dropped the applicant’s MOS as a skill approved for the higher $20,000 SLRP.  The applicant’s commander determined that the error in preparing her contract did not rest with the applicant.  The commander stated that the applicant is an outstanding soldier who has performed her duties with unmatched competence and professionalism.

7.  The SLRP provides for the repayment by the Government of a designated portion of any outstanding student loan(s) secured after 1 October 1975.  The maximum SLRP amount is $10,000 unless the soldier enlists for an MOS which is on the list of critical skills published by Department of the Army.  If a soldier enlists for a critical skill, they are given a maximum SLRP amount of $20,000.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s recruiter offered the applicant the $20,000 SLRP in good faith.  The recruiter either wasn't furnished, or didn't use, the list of those MOS’s approved for the $20,000 SLRP for 1997.

2.  It is evident that the $20,000 SLRP was a major, if not primary, reason the applicant enlisted in the USAR for assignment to a unit.
3.  Due to the lengthy passage of time from the date of her enlistment, it would not be fair or equitable to now offer the applicant a discharge from her defective enlistment contract.

4.  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 MOS of the individual concerned was on the list of skills approved for the $20,000 SLRP at the time of her enlistment, in this case only, as an exception to policy.

BOARD VOTE:  

cjp_____  ___wtm __  ___ym __  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		___Walter T. Morrison _______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002071180	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20030130	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.