IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 November 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150003880 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests an exception to policy (ETP) to retain her entitlement to the Student Loan Repayment Program (SLRP), which she contracted for at the time of her enlistment in the South Carolina Army National Guard (SCARNG). 2. The applicant states: a. Five years after she enlisted, she was informed by the SCARNG G-1 that she did not qualify for the SLRP because it was incorrectly offered to her at the time of her enlistment. b. On 22 May 2009, her recruiter offered and initiated an SLRP enlistment, which she signed. At the time of the offer, she met all the qualifications including those specified in Annex L (SLRP Addendum – ARNG of the United States) to the DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document – Armed Forces of the United States). c. In good faith, she and her recruiter engaged in a legal binding contract that included her enrollment in the SLRP. To solidify this agreement, in 2 consecutive years, she benefited from the SLRP by receiving a payment of $2,450.83 on 4 June 2010 and a second payment of $4,135.20 on 30 August 2011. She has not accepted any type of bonuses that would disqualify her from the SLRP. d. On 22 October 2013, the SCARNG G-1 Education Manager sent her an email confirming the recruiter or someone at the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) offered her an incorrect enlistment contract. On 29 July 2014, the Deputy G-1 for the ARNG sent her a memorandum to notify her that: * her request for an ETP was denied and her entitlement to the SLRP was terminated * the ARNG would initiate action to recoup the approximately $6,500 she received as loan repayment * the ARNG SLRP enlistment options did not include military occupational specialty (MOS) 09S (Commissioned Officer Candidate) e. She enlisted in the SCARNG in good faith. She has served honorably and she has dutifully followed all the instructions from those at the MEPS, her recruiter, and her chain of command. Equally, she acknowledges individuals make mistakes, but she does not understand why she is being punished for a mistake she did not make. As a new enlistee, she did not have the privilege of knowing all the programs or program eligibility requirements, but the recruiters did. It is the recruiters who need to be held accountable. f. She respectfully requests the members of the Board grant her an ETP allowing her to finish the SLRP, which she started in May 2009. She commends everyone involved for acknowledging the mistake of the recruiter or MEPS personnel; however, because the mistake was not hers, she further requests the Board's approval to refrain from seeking recoupment of the $6,586.03 the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) paid to Sallie Mae in student loan repayments. Recouping these funds will create a personal financial hardship, not to mention tarnish the stellar reputation of the ARNG. g. She enlisted in the ARNG because service in the ARNG is based on integrity, service, duty, and honor. She signed a contract clearly stating she was eligible for the SLRP and she has complied with all the requirements the Education Office in the SCARNG has requested. DFAS paid Sallie Mae part of her student loans in 2010 and 2011, as she expected according to her understanding of the enlistment contract. 3. The applicant provides: * DD Form 4 * Annex L to DD Form 4 * two military pay vouchers * a 4-page information paper on the SLRP obtained from the website "www.nationalguard.com" CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant enlisted in the SCARNG on 22 May 2009. Her DD Form 4 shows she enlisted for MOS 09S. 2. Her SLRP Addendum, signed by both the applicant and her enlisting official on 22 May 2009, indicates she was eligible for the SLRP and that at the time of her enlistment, she had one existing loan in the amount of $5,670.00. The addendum also indicates she could acquire new loans during the contracted period. The addendum includes a control number. 3. The applicant provided two military pay vouchers that show she received a SLRP payment in the amount of $2,450.83 on 3 June 2010 and a second SLRP payment in the amount of $4,135.20 on 29 August 2011. 4. She was appointed as a commissioned officer in the SCARNG in the rank of second lieutenant on 13 August 2011. She was promoted to first lieutenant on 13 February 2013. 5. On 29 July 2014, the National Guard Bureau (NGB), ARNG Deputy G-1, denied a request by the SCARNG for an ETP to allow the applicant to retain eligibility for participation in the SLRP. The NGB directed the State Incentive Manager to terminate the incentive with recoupment effective the date of enlistment. The ARNG Deputy G-1 stated the following: a. The applicant was not authorized the specific SLRP on the contract date, in accordance with ARNG Selected Reserve Incentive Program (SRIP) Policy Guidance for Fiscal Year 2007, 2008, and 2009 (Policy Number 07-06 with updates), dated 1 March 2009. b. Although a control number was approved in January 2010, it was originally denied in May 2009. In addition, the ARNG did not have an MOS 09S enlistment option that was authorized the SLRP. 6. A review of the ARNG SRIP Policy Guidance for Fiscal Year 2007, 2008, and 2009 (Policy Number 07-06 with updates), confirms the ARNG did not have an MOS 09S enlistment option that was authorized the SLRP at the time of the applicant's enlistment. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The evidence shows the applicant enlisted in the SCARNG on 22 May 2009 and her contract shows she was eligible for participation in the SLRP. 2. In accordance with ARNG SRIP Policy Guidance for Fiscal Year 2007, 2008, and 2009 (Policy Number 07-06), the ARNG did not have an MOS 09S enlistment option that was authorized the SLRP at the time of her enlistment. 3. Notwithstanding the above, the applicant accepted an incentive offer in good faith and she has otherwise fulfilled the obligations under the contract. She completely depended on the guidance of the State Incentive Manager throughout the enlistment process and she should not be penalized for errors committed by recruiting officials or the State Incentive Manager. Therefore, withholding payment of this incentive and recouping monies already paid would be against equity and good conscience and contrary to the best interest of the Army. 4. In view of the foregoing and as a matter of equity, any doubt should be resolved in favor of the applicant. It would be appropriate to correct her records to show an ETP was approved allowing her to retain the SLRP incentive. In addition, the recoupment action should be terminated and she should be reimbursed all monies that have been recouped, if any. BOARD VOTE: ___x____ ___x____ ___x____ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army and Army National Guard records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing an exception to policy request was approved allowing the applicant to retain full participation in the SLRP in accordance with the terms set forth in Annex L to her DD Form 4. In addition, monies already recouped should be returned to her. _______ _ _x______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150003880 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150003880 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1