MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:

	BOARD DATE:            5 April 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031333

	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. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		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 the remaining portion of his student loan be paid under the Student Loan Repayment Program (SLRP).

APPLICANT STATES:  That the SLRP stopped paying his student loan because of incorrect information he was given by his USAR unit administrator.  During the reenlistment in which he was given the SLRP, he went back to school and took out student loans, loans which he expected to be paid under the SLRP.  The SLRP paid five installments on his loans which left him an outstanding balance of $2,411.96.  When his reenlistment terminated, he went to reenlist in the same unit but his unit administrator told him that he was not eligible for any further benefits under the SLRP because he had used it during his prior reenlistment.  He then opted to enlist in the ARNG because he was falsely told that he would received SLRP benefits if he did so.  When he discovered he would not receive SLRP for his enlistment in the ARNG, he returned to his USAR unit.  He has since learned that he would have maintained SLRP eligibility if he had not enlisted in the ARNG, a course of action he had taken based on the faulty advice of his unit administrator.

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

He reenlisted in the USAR for assignment to a troop program unit on 4 March 1987.  This was his first reenlistment.  In conjunction with that reenlistment he was given the SLRP.

On 4 March 1993 he enlisted in the ARNG for 6 years.  On 17 May 1993 he reenlisted in the USAR.  Neither of those contracts have SLRP addenda.

Army Regulation 135-7 provides the guidance for the SLRP.  The version in effect at the time of the reenlistment in question, dated 1 June 1990, specified that benefits under the SLRP are terminated with the completion of the enlistment contract on which the incentive was attached.  Immediate reenlistment terminated SLRP at that time.  On 1 September 1994 the regulation was amended to permit continuation of SLRP as long as selected reserve status was maintained.  Enlistment in the ARNG was specified as an action which would not terminate SLRP benefits.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  It is evident that the applicant was told of the policy in effect subsequent to his reenlistment and, therefore, thought that he had been given incorrect information which cost him continuation of his SLRP payments.  

2.  Since the applicant reenlisted prior to the change in AR 135-7, his SLRP benefits terminated with his 1987 reenlistment, regardless of whether he enlisted in the ARNG or not.

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

___rvo___  _sk_____  _le _____  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031333	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2000.04.05	
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.	128.05	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.