MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           20 January 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031581

	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. Richard H. Allen		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Robert G. Hinkle		Chairperson	
	Mr. Gary F. Geraets		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis 		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:  In effect, authorization for payment of a Regular Army (RA) enlistment bonus to offset his loss of money under the Army College Fund (sic) enlistment incentive.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In an affidavit, that, in essence, he was told by his local recruiter that he would be entitled to full repayment of all his college loans, totaling $54,000.  His enlistment paperwork was reviewed at the Manpower Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) and at his training unit, but he was never told that the loans had to be federally insured.  He was not required to initial part 4 of his DA Form 3286-66 concerning his college loans.  He has now been denied repayment of $14,000 of his loans because they were not federally sponsored educational loans.  He submits a copy of his DA Form 3286-66 (Incentive Enlistment Program); his DA Form 4/3 (Confirmation of Enlistment); a copy of his Bachelor of Science degree from Alfred University, Alfred, New York, copies of his promissory notes for a Federal Stafford Loan and for a Key Alternative Loan; and a copy of his denial of eligibility for repayment of the Key Alternative Loan.  

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

While attending Alfred University, the applicant received $40,000 in college loans insured under the Stafford Plan between 1994 and 1997.  Also, on 30 August 1996 he received a $14,000 “Key Alternative Loan,” a college loan issued by the KeyBank, USA.  He graduated from Alfred University, with a Bachelor of Science degree in May 1998.

On 24 July 1998, the applicant enlisted in the RA for 3 years for training in Career Management Field (CMF) 11 (Infantry).  A  DA Form 3286-66, Annex D (Statement of Understanding-United States Army Incentive Enlistment Program) was completed.  In item 1a, it was indicated that he was enlisting for Enlistment Option 9A-US Army Enlistment Training Option and Enlistment Option 9C-US Army Student Loan Repayment Program.  The form stated in item 1c that he understood that he was only entitled to the incentive as listed in 1a above and that he had not been given any other guarantees or other verbal promises in connection with his enlistment, other than his primary option.  

In item 4a of the form it stated:  “I understand 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 Act of 1975 (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.”
In parts 1b and 1c it essentially stated that 33 1/3 percent of his loan or $1,500, whichever was greater, would be paid upon successful completion of each 1-year period of service.  The entry “Not to exceed $65,000.” was typed in after these latter two items and he was required to initial these entries in his contract.
The applicant successfully completed his training and is now serving in pay grade E-4 as an Infantryman in Alaska.  

In connection with repayment of his college loans, he applied on a DA Form 2475 (DOD Educational Loan Repayment Program (LRP) Annual Application) in March or May 1999, for repayment of the appropriate portion of his $14,000 Key Alternative Loan.  His request was denied by the Great Lakes Higher Education Corporation (presumably the contractor for processing such claims) with the notation in item 13 “ Alternate loans are not Federally guaranteed and are not eligible for military repayment.”

On 16 June 1999, the Chief, Education Incentives, US Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) notified the applicant of the denial (COPY ATTACHED). 
In that denial, the PERSCOM official noted that part 4 of the DA Form 3286-66, stated, in essence, that he understood that his college loans had to be Federally insured.  Further, the denial went on to state: “In addition, Public Law 99-145, Section 671 (a) (1), confirms loans eligible for repayment must be made under Title IV, Part B, D or E of the Higher Education Act of 1965.”

Army Regulation 601-210 contains the details concerning various enlistment incentives.  Program 9-C (US Army Incentive Enlistment Program) indicates that a soldier is entitled to one of the following incentives:  1) The Enlistment Bonus; 
2) The Army College Fund; or 3) The Loan Repayment Program.  However, these incentives are not an entitlement, rather the option must be offered to a prospective enlistee to assist him or her in making up their mind as to whether they will enlist or not.  

That same regulation, at paragraph 1-12, specifies that the DD Forms 4, together with appropriate annexes, is the only valid agreement that exists between the enlistee and the Department of the Army on enlistment in the RA or the US Army Reserve (USAR).

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

1.  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, in this case, has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The applicant entered into a valid contract with the Army for 3 years.  In connection with this enlistment, he opted for training in CMF 11 (Infantry) and the Student Loan Repayment Program.  He did not enlist for the Enlistment Bonus under Program 9-C. 
3.  The applicant signed the DA Form 3286-66 at the time he enlisted in the RA on 24 July 1998.  Whether he read the contract in full is a moot point.  The contract clearly stated in item 4a that the only college loans that would be repaid were essentially those that were made, insured or guaranteed under parts B or E of the Higher Education Act of 1975.  Since paragraph 4a was an inherent part of the contract, and did not have any amendments that were added to paragraphs 4b and 4c which he did have to initial, his signature constituted recognition of the terms of the contract/enlistment options.  

4.  Further, the applicant has provided no evidence that his recruiter misadvised him at the time of his enlistment.  

5.  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

__RGH__  __GFG__  __BJE___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031581	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000120	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Director	
ISSUES         1.	112.04	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.