MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            30 JANUARY 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002075161

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		Member	
	Ms. Yalonda Maldonado		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:  Reconsideration of her request to have her CitiAssist Citi-Bank student loan paid under her Student Loan Repayment Enlistment Incentive.

APPLICANT STATES:  The identical statement rendered in her initial application to the Board; that she, in effect, was assured that this loan qualified under SLRP (Student Loan Repayment Program) and that this was a "primary incentive" for her enlistment in the Army.  In an undated, self-authored statement, she notes that she was told "all" of her student loans would be repaid.  She notes that she has attempted to secure a statement from her recruiter but his station commander "refused to allow him to write the letter."  She maintains she was not provided any "rules or regulation of the SLRP" when she enlisted and that her actions to defer payment on the loan in question should serve as evidence that she thought the Army would repay the loan.  She submits copies of her enlistment document, in addition to statements from her parents, copies of her CitiAssit Citi-Bank loan, and a copy of a letter she submitted to her congressional representative.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of her case on 15 May 2001 (AR2001055774).  The statements submitted by the applicant from her parents constituted new evidence, which required referral to the Board.

In July 2001 the applicant contracted her congressional representative and informed him of her inability to resolve issues surrounding the payment of her students loans.  In response to the inquiry, the applicant's congressional representative was provided a copy of the applicant's original Board action and informed that while she alleged that recruiting personnel had told her the disputed loan was payable under the SLRP, she failed to provide evidence which supported that allegation.

In undated statements, which were notarized in April 2002, the applicant's parents indicate that they accompanied the applicant to the "recruiter" and when they asked if "they paid off all loans" they were told yes.

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.  Unfortunately the applicant's submission of statements by her parents are not sufficiently compelling for the Board to conclude that the applicant was told specifically that her CitiAssist Citi-Bank student loan would be repaid as part of her enlistment contract.  

2.  The Board notes that the applicant signed her enlistment contract after initialing that she understood that only loans made, insured or guaranteed under Part B of the Higher Education Act of 1965 or any loan under Part E of such act after 1 October 1975 and before she enlisted in the Regular Army, would be paid under the Student Loan Repayment Program.  The applicant continues to provide insufficient evidence that her CitiAssist Citi-Bank loan was specifically guaranteed for repayment or that she took any steps to clarify which of her loans met the requirement of the Higher Education Act.  There is no evidence that she provided copies of the student loans she intended to have repaid to her recruiting personnel in order to obtain verification that they met requirements under the law for repayment.

3.  Additionally, the Board continues to note that the applicant has not shown that had she known that the CitiAssist Citi-Bank loan would not be repaid that it would have impacted on her decision not to join the Army.

4.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

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

__WTM__  __CJP __  __YM ___  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002075161	
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	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	128.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.