IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 6 October 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160009580 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____X____ ___X_____ ____X____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 6 October 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160009580 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. _____________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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 6 October 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160009580 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 eligibility for the Enlisted Loan Repayment Program (ELRP) incentive. 2. The applicant states, in effect, she was unable to complete training for her contracted military occupational specialty (MOS) 68W (Health Care Specialist); however, she was assured that she could reclassify and maintain eligibility for the ELRP incentive by a Government representative. She successfully completed training in MOS 88M (Motor Transport Operator), and then she was informed that she was no longer eligible for the ELRP incentive because she did not complete training as a 68W, her contracted MOS. She has continued to serve for 6 years in the U.S. Army National Guard (ARNG) without any incentives. 3. The applicant provides two letters of support, a self-authored statement, orders, an enlistment contract, bankruptcy letter, email correspondence, and an ETP denial memorandum from the National Guard Bureau (NGB). CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. On 13 September 2010, the applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard (ARNG) for a period of 6 years with 2 years in the Individual Ready Reserve. She and her recruiter completed the Guard Annex to DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Agreement ARNG Service Requirements and Methods of Fulfillment) wherein she indicated by her signature that she understood her contract. In effect, that for any reason beyond her control, if she was unable to complete training in her contracted MOS, she would accept training in an alternate MOS. She is currently serving in the ARNG in MOS 88M. 2. She specifically contracted for training in MOS 68W (Health Care Specialist) and assignment to Unit Identification Code (UIC) W8YZAA (Georgia ARNG Medical Command). In connection with this enlistment, she completed Annex L to DD Form 4 (ELRP Addendum) wherein she stated she had two loans in the amount of $34,708.00 and that the total amount of repayment for qualifying loan(s) would not exceed $50,000.00. Her contract included guidance on the termination of the ELRP. 3. By her own admission, the applicant was not able to complete training for MOS 68W due to her failure to pass required exam(s) for certification as a Health Care Specialist. She was then offered training and completed MOS training for MOS 88M. Orders 217-846, issued by The Adjutant General, State of Georgia, dated 5 August 2011, show she was released from the GAARNG Medical Command, Ellenwood, GA, and transferred to Company F, 148th Brigade Support Battalion (BSB), Albany, GA, as a vehicle driver. This order shows she voluntarily requested this action. 4. On 13 August 2014, the Deputy G-1, ARNG, NGB, denied the applicant’s request for an ETP to retain the ELRP and directed the State Incentive Manager to terminate the incentive with recoupment effective her contract start date. The memorandum stated she was unable to complete the training for which she contracted and her request could not be granted. 5. The applicant provides email correspondence between her and Sergeant First Class (SFC) G, Recruit Sustainment Program (RSP) Readiness Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) in which she apologized for not being able to complete the requirements for MOS 68W. She requested another MOS other than the one offered which was MOS 15T (Blackhawk Chopper Repairer). SFC G informed her that she can only be placed in an MOS that is understrength. He informed her that she could either attend 15T training or be discharged from the ARNG. SFC G further advised her that her ELRP would remain intact. 6. Her current ARNG company commander provided a memorandum, dated 14 May 2016, wherein he states that she received ?erroneous information? from ARNG unit noncommissioned officer leadership. At the time of her enlistment, MOS 88M was a high demand MOS and also was an ELRP eligible MOS. The whole purpose for her enlistment in the ARNG was to obtain assistance with her student loans. The applicant should be allowed to change her contract to show she enlisted for MOS 88M so she can retain the ELRP. REFERENCES: NGB Education Division Instruction 1.1 (Chaplain, Health Professional and ELRP (CHELRP)) provides guidance with procedures, and information to participate and execute the ARNG ELRP. Paragraph 4-2 states the incentive for ELRP will be terminated if the Soldier moves to another MOS or is reclassified in an MOS other than that for which he/she contracted. DISCUSSION: 1. On 24 September 2010, the applicant enlisted for MOS 68W with assignment to a medical company. At the time she completed an ELRP Addendum indicating she understood the requirements for retaining the ELRP. She acknowledges she was unable to complete training for MOS 68W and subsequently completed MOS 88M training. 2. The preponderance of evidence shows she was unable to complete the training for which she contracted for and her request could not be granted due to her own fault. Based on her inability to complete MOS 68W training, she is not serving in her contracted MOS. SFC G, acting in his official capacity, informed her she could retain her ELRP. However, upon review of her contract, addendum and regulatory guidance, it appears he provided her with inaccurate information that could not be implemented. 3. NGB Education Division Instruction 1.1 (CHELRP) provides guidance with procedures, and information to participate and execute the ARNG ELRP. It states the incentive for ELRP will be terminated if the Soldier moves to another MOS or is reclassified in an MOS other than that for which he/she contracted. By regulation and her contractual agreements, there is no evidence of an error in the decision to terminate her ELRP eligibility. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160009580 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160009580 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2