RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            13 JANUARY 2004                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003088486

	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	
	Ms. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Lana E. McGlynn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	
	Mr. Patrick H. McGann, Jr.		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).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:  

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that all of his student loans be paid under the terms of the Loan Repayment Program (LRP).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he executed his enlistment contract on 
14 February 2002.  He notes that his contract shows that he declined the Montgomery GI Bill and instead “took the LRP that guaranteed [he] was entitled up to $65,000 for the four different school loans that [he] had taken out to attend college….”

3.  The applicant states that he gave copies of his loans to an official at the Des Moines MEPS (Military Entrance Processing Station) and that that individual “handed them back to me and said nothing about them not being covered….”  He states that he attempted to secure a statement from the individual at the Des Moines MEPS but was told “he couldn’t help me out.”

4.  He states that he understood “absolutely nothing about what is eligible and what is not” and that now he is “stuck here at Ft. [Fort] Irwin in the dark having paid out about $1500, and still paying for student loans that [he] thought [he] didn’t have to worry about after [he] joined the Army.”

5.  In support of his request he submits copies of his enlistment contract, copies of his loan promissory notes, and the denial letters from the United States Army Human Resources Command-Alexandria denying payment of his private student loan.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  He enlisted in the United States Army Reserve, in pay grade E-3, on 
14 February 2002 under the Delayed Entry/Enlistment Program.  On 6 March 2002 he was discharged from the United States Army Reserve to enter active duty as a Regular Army Soldier.  

2.  At the time of his enlistment the applicant completed several enlistment forms indicating that the Student Loan Repayment Program was part of his enlistment incentives.  

3.  His enlistment incentives also included receipt of an $8000.00 enlistment bonus and assignment to a unit of choice.

4.  As part of the applicant’s enlistment processing he signed a Department of the Army Form 3286-66 (Statement of Understanding United States Army Incentive Enlistment Program) indicating that he understood “that under this program (LRP) that the government will repay a designated portion of any loan I incurred that was made, insured or guaranteed, under Part B of the Higher Education Action of 1965 (Guaranteed Student Loan) or any loan under Part E of such act (National Direct Student Loan) after 1 October 1975 and before I enlist into the Regular Army.”  

5.  His enlistment document does not specify any specific loans, which were to be repaid under his LRP enlistment incentive.

6.  In January 2003, while serving on active duty, the applicant submitted two Department of Defense Forms 2475 (DOD Education Loan Repayment Program Annual Application).  One form requested payment of his CitiAssist Loan and the other form request payment of a Mohela Cash Loan.  On 12 February and 
3 March 2003, officials at the United States Army Human Resources Command-Alexandria responded to the applicant stating that his loans (totaling more than $4300.00) were not payable under the LRP.  

7.  The Department of Defense Form 2475 from Mohela Cash Loans noted that the type of loan is a “private alternative” loan.

8.  The LRP is an educational enlistment incentive which provides for payment of a percentage of the unpaid principal of eligible student loans for each year of active duty a Soldier completes.

9.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 2171, limits loans that are eligible for repayment under the LRP to those made, insured, or guaranteed under the Higher Education Act of 1965.

10.  In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was provided by officials from the United States Army Human Resources Command-Alexandria.  Those officials recommended the applicant’s petition be denied and reemphasized that the applicant had acknowledged in his enlistment documents that he understood that under the LRP “that the government will repay a designated portion of any loan [he] incurred that was made, insured or guaranteed under Part B of the Higher Education Act of 1965….”  They noted that based on documentation provided the loans did not qualify for repayment under the LRP and that they were private loans.

11.  When given an opportunity to respond to the advisory opinion, the applicant did not respond.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  While the applicant contends that he may have been misled by his recruiter he has provided no evidence from any disinterested source, such as his recruiter, an official from the recruiting office, or confirmation that the loans in question were provided to the recruiter at the time of enlistment, which could be used to independently substantiate his request.

2.  It is unfortunate that the applicant may not have understood that not all of his student loans were payable under the LRP.  While the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Board, under Title 10, United States Code, section 1552, could pay the student loans by amending the applicant’s enlistment contract should an error or injustice exist, in this case, there is no evidence of error or injustice; consequently, there is no basis to warrant amending the enlistment contract.

3.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show, 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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__LEM __  __RWA__  __PHM__  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

		____Lana E. McGlynn_______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003088486	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20030113	
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.	128.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.