ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 April 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160017449 APPLICANT REQUESTS: reconsideration of his earlier request for reversal of the National Guard Bureau's decision to deny him an exception to policy to retain the Student Loan Repayment Program (SLRP) incentive. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Self-Authored Statement * NGB Exception to Policy (ETP) Findings * Memorandum, Subject: Request for ETP – Closed 1 May 2009 FACTS: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20080015396 on 20 April 2009. 2. The applicant states: a. He believes that terminating the SLRP with recoupment is unjust because the actions that were taken to continue receive the benefit were based on the directions given by the state Incentive Manager (IM). He states that if a Soldier cannot trust their IM who is the subject matter expert (SME), than who can they trust? Furthermore, the following lead to this injustice: he contracted for the $20,000 SLRP incentive and a $15,000 Prior Service Enlistment Bonus (PSEB) on 21 July 2006, military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman) in Unit Identification Code (UIC) WTT1C0, 149th Infantry, on the Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 Selected Reserve Incentive Program (SRIP). Both the MOS and UIC were critical. Near the time of the enlistment the contract was verified and approved by the IM. However, close to the time to start receiving the PSEB and for the first payment of the SLRP he began to inquire with his Readiness Noncommissioned Officer about the payment dates of the PSEB. At this time, he was informed that there was a problem with his contract and that he would not be receiving the PSEB but the SLRP would still be received. He researched filling an appeal as to why he would not receive the PSEB, the appeal and the ABCMR findings with supporting documents are attached. b. While waiting on the recommendation from the ABCMR response, the 1204th Aviation Support Battalion, a brand new unit was activated in the State looking to fill vacancies. He worked with his new unit and the IM to appeal the ruling of not paying the PSEB, meanwhile the ABCMR denied his request and he was given three options by the IM: * cancel his contract and separate from the service * amend his contract to the amount of the time served and then do an immediate reenlistment to receive a bonus, which would cancel his SLRP and require repayment of the payment already received and make him ineligible to receive SLRP on any future contract * continue to serve out his contract in his current assignment, and continue receiving the SLRP c. He elected the third option. The IM office was aware of the transfer of units, they continued to not only initiate SLRP packets but continued to approve the payments. On 8 October 2015, he received an email from his unit that was originated from the IM stating the applicant contracted for SLRP in 2006 as an 11B, one year later he transferred to MOS 89B (Ammunition Specialist) which caused his contract to be terminated. However, he continued to receive payments, his contract now needs to be terminated with recoupment of overpayments. He was told to request an ETP and that it would likely not grant him anymore payments, but it might waive recoupment if he has a justifiable reason. He elected to submit an ETP to his unit on 10 November 2015. On 12 October 2016 he received an email from the IM disapproving the ETP. He has continued to serve out the contract based on options that was given by the State incentive office in 2009, and finds it unjust to go against that guidance seven years later. 3. The applicant provides: a. The NGB ETP findings stating that the ETP to retain the $20,000 SLRP is disapproved for the discrepancy: Voluntary transferred out of the contracted MOS which violates the Department of Defense Instruction 1205.21, paragraph 6.62. b. A self-authored statement which states while waiting for the recommendation from the ABCMR he was also experiencing severe knee pain which greatly limited his abilities and performance as an infantryman. While feeling distrust, and being told that he was not going to receive the PSEB, the appeal of joining a new unit that was twenty minutes from his house versus and unit that is two to three hours from his house became more appealing. In December 2007 he requested to be transferred from UIC WTT1C0 to WNG1G2 and it was approved and he did not receive any counseling as to how this would affect his contract. He voluntarily transferred for three reasons: * he was diagnosed with bilateral chondromalacia of the patella in 2007 * for less driving distance to unit * new unit was less than 10% strength and UIC and MOS were critical on the FY 07-10 strength reports c. He mentioned that it was the State’s recommendation that in the best interest of the ARNG to not financially punish him based on incorrect information from the IM. Furthermore, the deputy chief of staff, personnel for the state of Kentucky recommended that the contract be terminated without recoupment of payments already made. 4. A review of the applicant’s service records shows: a. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 August 1996 and was honorably released from active duty on 18 May 1999. b. He enlisted in the Kentucky Army National Guard (KYARNG) on 19 May 1999. c. He was discharged on 11 December 2002 for unsatisfactory participation and given a general under honorable conditions discharge. d. On 13 July 2006, a request for waiver was approved for enlistment. e. On 21 July 2006 he reenlisted in the KYARNG for a period of 6 years. Included with the reenlistment, he completed an Annex S (Student Loan Repayment Program Addendum (SLRP) to DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document). He acknowledged: a. Section II (Eligibility): * he was enlisting in a valid position vacancy in UIC WTT1D2 and in the critical skill MOS 11B (Infantryman) (handwritten) * he had one existing loan in the amount of $19,625.90 and the total amount of repayment for qualifying loan(s) would not exceed $20,000 * he held the primary MOS for the position in which he was immediately reenlisting/extending * he was immediately reenlisting/extending in a valid position vacancy in UIC WPXLHD and in the critical skill MOS 42A (Human Resources Specialist) has authorized for SLRP (typed) * he must remain in the contracted MOS for the first 3 years of his contract b. Section III (Entitlements and Payments): * the Government would repay a designated portion of any outstanding loan(s) that he has secured since 1 October 1975 * loans must be 1 year old or older on his first anniversary eligibility date to qualify for the program * the portion that may be repaid annually on any qualifying loan(s) will not exceed 15% (not to exceed $3,000 per year) of the total of all loans of $500, whichever is greater * payment would be processed on the anniversary date of his enlistment for each satisfactory year of service c. Section V (Termination): he understood his SLRP eligibility would be terminated if he voluntarily transferred out of his contracted MOS prior to his third year anniversary and/or SLRP eligible unit. d. Section VI (Statement of Understanding): he read his contract and would receive a copy of the addendum with his enlistment packet. e. Section VI (Authentication): he authenticated this addendum with his signature and it was certified by his service representative. 8. On 8 August 2008, the applicant requested an ETP that he be paid a SLRP as promised by his recruiter that was agreed upon when he enlisted in the KYARNG. On 30 April 2009, by memorandum, the applicant was informed his request for ETP was denied. 9. On 30 April 2009, following his petition, the Board determined that although there was an error on the part of his recruiting official and the State Incentive Manager, the applicant did not meet the legal requirements for the PSEB and the error by the IM was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the relief requested. 10. Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 1205.21 (Reserve Component Incentive Programs Procedures), paragraph 6.6.2 states, persons whose military specialty is changed at the convenience of the Government or whose unit is inactivated, relocated, reorganized, or converted (e.g., weapons systems conversion) are entitled to continue receiving incentive payments provided they meet all other eligibility criteria, and are not separated from the Selected Reserve. 11. ARNG Selected Reserve Incentive Program Guidance for Fiscal Year 2006, 26 May 2006 to 31 December 2006 (Policy Number 06-06) states if entitlement to an incentive is terminated for any reason before the fulfillment of the service described in the member’s written agreement, that member shall not be eligible to receive any further incentive payments, except for payments for service performed before the termination date. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board determined that relief was not warranted. Based upon the ARNG policy, Policy Number 06-60, stating if entitlement to an incentive is terminated for any reason before the fulfillment of the service described in the member’s written agreement, that member shall not be eligible to receive any further incentive payments and the applicant voluntarily transferred out to the contracted MOS, the Board concluded that no injustice or error was present which would warrant a correction to the record. For that reason, the Board recommended denying the applicant’s request for relief. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING X X X DENY APPLICATION 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. 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. REFERENCES: 1. Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 1205.21 (Reserve Component Incentive Programs Procedures), paragraph 6.2 states, as a condition of the receipt of an incentive covered by this Instruction, each recipient shall be required to sign a written agreement stating that the member has been advised of and understands the conditions under which continued entitlement to unpaid incentive amounts shall be terminated and which advance payments may be recouped. 2. ARNG SRIP Guidance for FY 2006, 26 May 2006 – 31 December 2006 (Policy Number 06-06), establishes policy to administer ARNG incentives. The purpose of the program is to assist ARNG leadership and personnel manager in meeting the readiness for the ARNG. Critical shortages identified through Unit Status Reports must be used in order to focus the incentive program on the State’s prioritized shortages. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160017449 6 1