BOARD DATE: 18 November 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140000786 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, in effect, reinstatement of his Student Loan Repayment Program (SLRP) incentives. 2. The applicant states that on 3 January 2006 he reenlisted in the Kansas Army National Guard (KSARNG) for a bonus and the Student Loan Repayment Program (SLRP) incentive for up to $20,000. He thought he signed the addenda for the bonus and the SLRP; however, he was told to re-sign the addendum for the SLRP on 9 July 2009. The control numbers for both incentives were requested on 3 January 2006. The Army partially paid for his student loans in 2009 before he was deployed and he assumed that all was well until 2 December 2012 when received a memorandum indicating that his exception to policy was denied and the Army would start recouping $6,261.12 beginning in January 2014. The full-time technician incorrectly prepared his addendum with the wrong military occupational specialty (MOS) and erred in the processing of his addendum. He is now being held accountable for someone else’s mistake. 3. The applicant provides copies of the denial of his request for an exception to policy from the National Guard Bureau (NGB) and copies of his bonus and SLRP addenda. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant was serving as a mechanic in the KSARNG in the pay grade of E-5 when he reenlisted on 3 January 2006 for a period of 6 years, a $15,000 reenlistment bonus, and participation in the SLRP. He held MOS 63D (Artillery Mechanic). He deployed to Egypt during the period 14 September 2009 through 12 July 2010. 3. The initial notification of recoupment action is not present in the available records; however, on 25 November 2013 the NGB denied the applicant’s request for an exception to policy and directed the State Incentive Manager to initiate action to recoup the SLRP funds already paid. NGB officials cited the applicant was not MOS qualified for the MOS he contracted for (MOS 88M) while occupying an 00F (Drill Sergeant) position and his addendum and control number were requested after he reenlisted. 4. The evidence of record shows the applicant was serving in MOS 63D at the time of reenlistment, and on 1 February 2009 he was awarded primary MOS (PMOS) 63B (Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic) and secondary MOS (SMOS) 63D. On 2 October 2009, he was awarded PMOS 91B and SMOS 91F due to an MOS conversion. 5. Army Regulation 611-201 (MOS Codes) provides, in pertinent part, that MOS 00F may be held by personnel with any MOS and is considered career progression for all specialties. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. Notwithstanding the decision of the NGB to deny the applicant’s request for an exception to policy to retain his SLRP benefits, 4 years after the fact, it appears that all of the mistakes made in the applicant’s case were administrative in nature and were made by KSARNG administrative personnel who should have been aware of the policies and procedures for processing reenlistment documents. 2. The applicant was serving as a mechanic at the time of his reenlistment and he reenlisted in good faith for a bonus and participation in the SLRP. However, several years later he was notified that his SLRP benefits were not valid due to several administrative errors that occurred in the processing of his contract and associated documents. 3. In any event, there is no evidence to show that any of the errors that occurred were through the fault of the applicant and he should not be the one who bears the burden of those mistakes. 4. Accordingly, as a matter of equity, the applicant’s contract should be corrected to satisfy the regulatory requirements if possible and the applicant’s SLRP benefits should be restored and any monies collected should be returned to the applicant. 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 National Guard records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing that he was granted an exception to policy to retain his SLRP benefits and that any monies collected be returned to the applicant from ARNG funds. _______ _ 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) AR20140000786 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140000786 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1