ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 18 December 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170010061 APPLICANT REQUESTS: reversal of the National Guard Bureau’s (NGB) decision to deny her request for an exception to policy (ETP) to retain the $50,000.00 Student Loan Repayment Program (SLRP) incentive when she enlisted in the Kentucky Army National Guard (KYARNG). APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Emails * DD Form 1966 (Record of Military Processing) * DA Form 5435 Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) * Guard Annex (Enlistment/Reenlistment Agreement ARNG Service Requirements and Methods of Fulfillment) * Inspector General SLRP Memorandum * ETP SLRP Memorandum * Sworn Statement * Request for ETP (KYARNG) * Request ETP SLRP * Second Review Request ETP SLRP FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three-year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code (USC), section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states: a. Her SLRP contract is missing from her enlistment contract due to an oversight on the part of her recruiter. They agreed upon an Active/Reserve Guard contract, with 90% loan repayment up to $50,000. She was almost 5 years into her contract and found no resolution through her State or NGB. She filed for two ETP requests and both were denied through her unit. She hoped the SLRP would be reinstated because of the error. b. It was two years into her contract (2015) that she discovered her loans were not being paid. The interest had accumulated thousands of dollars while she deferred the loans she hadn't budgeted to pay in full, expecting that the military was going to come through with a payment. She hadn't realized documents were missing because the loan statements and promissory notes were included in the packet that followed her from the recruiter to the MEPS (Military Entrance Processing Station), through BCT (Basic Combat Training) and onward. Her loan documents were in her packet, she assumed that was all she needed. She realized later the contract was left out. c. She had copies of all email correspondence showing the communications between the State Incentives Office, her recruiter and herself. The emails show she qualified for SLRP and that it was part of the agreement. The emails also show that upon request she provided all documentation required regarding her loans prior to her arrival at MEPS to enlist. The emails outline the dollar amounts of the loan and the terms the contract as well as instructions to the recruiter for filing the paperwork correctly (this was the neglected step). She also had sworn statements from involved persons indicating that from her conversations with the recruiter that the purpose of her enlistment was clearly to take advantage of SLRP, and there was no doubt of her intentions or eligibility. She absolutely would not have enlisted without the SLRP she was eligible for at the time, especially because it was promised to her, a sum of $50,000. d. She already had a Master's degree and met all eligibility requirements to earn the SLRP. She can't fathom why anyone would decline SLRP when it was offered, which was what made the situation so frustrating. The loan printouts and promissory she provided to the recruiter were included in her packet from the beginning but if she had known the SLRP contract itself was missing from the packet provided by the recruiter for the MEPS employees she would not have signed her contract. 3. The applicant provides: a. An email strand between the applicant’s recruiter sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7 and SFC education, incentives, and employment manager, dated 27 June 2012 reflected the SLRP officer who stated they will only pay 90% of her loans and the up to the $50,000 cap. (1). SFC P of education, incentives and employment stated the applicant was pre-approved for the SLRP. The applicant had 18 loans with a principle balance of $47,021 and interest of $3,554. (2). She would need a 50 AFQT (Armed Services Qualification Test) in order to qualify and to send a copy of that email in her packet to MEPS to ensure they write her SLRP at enlistment. (3). She understood that her SLRP is capped at $50,000 and so 100% of her loans would not be paid, only 90% would of her loans would be paid, up to $50,000. b. DD Form 1966 (Record of Military Processing), dated 28 June 2012 is void of SLRP information. c. She signed the DA Form 5435 (Statement of Understanding) Montgomery GI Bill Selected Reserve on 28 June 2012, which states: (1) Section III Qualifications: * Soldier must contract for at least 6 years in the Selected Reserve by enlisting, reenlisting or extending and enlistment or reenlistment contract in the USAR * be a secondary school graduate * complete Initial Active Duty Training (IADT) (2) Section IV entitlement: he understood that: * the date of her basic entitlement to educational assistance under the SEL RES MGIB would be established the day he met all the qualifications (3) Section V benefits: * the maximum benefit period was 36 months based on full time status, or 48 months based on ¾ time status or 72 months based on a half time status (3) Section VI caution: she understood that: * she might be qualified for the SEL Res MGIB and for a bonus under the Selected Reserve Incentive Program (SRIP) or other incentives such as loan repayments * she could reenlist or extend at any time during the current enlistment or reenlistment and the SRIP might specify that the reenlistment or extension be accomplished within a certain specified period prior the expiration of term of service (ETS) * if she was not within the specified period she would be ineligible for the SRIP bonus d. She signed the Certificate of Acknowledgment NG Service Requirements and Methods of Fulfillment (Guard Annex) on 28 June 2012. She enlisted in the ARNG for a total of 8 years: (1). Section IV service obligation she enlisted in the Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) 09S Commissioned Officer Candidate. (2). She would serve the remainder of her enlistment with her assigned unit. She was required to attend all scheduled unit training assemblies. (3). Section VIII statement of understanding-policies regarding Army Knowledge Online (AKO)-she endorsed on 28 June 2012. e. An email from the applicant to a SGT, dated 15 July 2013 states she just found out her student loans were not being repaid and were past due. She signed SLRP paperwork in June 2012 and was told she was good to go. f. An email from SFC (operations) to his first sergeant (1SG) dated 14 November 2014 states the applicant approached him regarding her student loans not getting paid. It appeared the applicant’s loan application/contract was never input into the system prior to her going to basic training. She states she spoke to her recruiter regarding her eligibility for SLRP. She joined the ARNG to get the SLRP to assist in paying down her loans from her Master’s degree. She signed the ARNG annex on 28 June 2012. g. In the email 19 November 2014 from 1SG to SFC, the 1SG states he was looking into it. The SFC (the applicant’s recruiter) had retired, making it much more difficult to investigate. He would let him know what he could find out about her student loan repayment. h. The email, dated 16 January 2015 from SFC to the 1SG asks if the 1SG had anything been determined or discovered regarding the applicant’s SLRP. The SFC had not received any correspondence since the email on 14 November 2014. The applicant was adamant she signed her loan papers upon contracting with the ARNG. (1). The supervisor emailed the SFC on 16 January 2015 and states he had worked with the applicant and knew the only reason she was joining. He had looked in all the electronic records and paper documents and he could not find any documents that would be of use to process her SLRP payments and that the whole situation was unacceptable and the right thing should be to correct her record. (2). A LTC emailed the supervisor on 16 January 2015, which supported the applicant and states that an Inspector General (IG) complaint may be needed on behalf of the applicant. i. In a memorandum, dated 26 January 2015 from the applicant stated to the IG, she had issues with her enrollment in the SLRP upon recently discovering her SLRP paperwork was not filed correctly during her enlistment in 2012. She states the SFC of the education incentives and employment office had inferred that there were two likely causes for the reason SLRP was not included in her contract. First, that her recruiter neglected to file the proper paperwork in the packet given to her for MEPS enlistment, even though he had gotten her instruction do so the day prior and indicated to her that the process was complete; and second, that at MEPS she was put in as a 09S (Officer candidate ) in an staff sergeant E-6 position which at the time may not have qualified for that type of bonus, and without that SLRP paperwork in her packet indicated her intentions and that she was qualified for the program, the MEPS staff handling her enlistment did not know to question that the enrollment system did not automatically prompt/print the SLRP contract for her or to ask her about it. If she had known SLRP was supposed to be part of that process she would have absolutely brought it up as a concern and asked the staff that day to be sure they took the appropriate actions to ensure tit was included in her contract. However, she did not know and simply trusted the process was proceeding the way it was supposed to. j. In the ETP for SLRP memorandum to the KYARNG, dated 23 March 2015 the applicant states she requested to participate in the SLRP as she was guaranteed during her enlistment and that she had yet to participate due to errors in her enlistment paperwork (the DA Form 5261-4-R-Student Loan Repayment Addendum- was not included in her enlistment contract addendums). She hoped to be provided a manual control number to be able to enroll in the program. k. A sworn statement from the senior recruit sustainment program (RSP) representative for KYARNG, dated 27 March 2015 states he saw the promissory notes had been uploaded into her file and was told by the applicant that the entitlement was what encouraged her to join the KYARNG. The SLRP would be used to help her pay off her Master’s Degree. The only reason promissory notes would be uploaded would be that the Solider enlisted and meet the criteria for the SLRP entitlement. He looked into the electronic and paperwork and was unable to locate the documents (NGB Form 600- 7-5-R-E (Annex L to DD Form 4)) that shows the Soldier enlisted for the SLRP. He had worked in that arena for seven years and the only reason that could exist for the promissory notes to be found in the applicant’s record was because the Soldier had contracted for it at enlistment. Contracts are made by verbal commitments as well as written ones. The correct course of action is to acknowledge that an error had been made by several people and offices on their team and to do the right thing in taking care of a Soldier. The applicant was married and her last name changed from P__ to S__. l. The ETP request, dated 23 April 2015 to authorize SLRP to the applicant since her recruiter failed to provide or notify the MEPS guidance counselor that she had pre- approved loans resulting in no SLRP contract being printed and to issue a manual control number for the SLRP in order to contract for the program was endorsed by the KYARNG director. m. The request for ETP for SLRP, dated 4 November 2015 to retain the $50,000.00 SLRP was disapproved for the discrepancy: written agreement cannot be located in the Soldier’s records which violated Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 1205.21, paragraph 6.2 (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). The ARNG does not have the authority to approve the request. No further documentation is on file that supports an incentive being offered to the Soldier at the time of her enlistment. The applicant could file a claim with the Army Board of Correction for Military Records (ABCMR) Army Regulation 15-185. This regulation prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity, which is that what the Army did was correct, if there is belief an error or injustice still exists. n. A second review request for ETP for SLRP, dated 9 November 2015 states the ETP to retain the $50,000.00 SLRP was disapproved since the enlistment documents did not support an incentive being offered which violated DODI 1205.21, paragraph 6.2. The applicant could file a claim with ABCMR. 4. A review of the applicant’s service record shows: a. She enlisted in the KYARNG on 28 June 2012. b. She signed the statement of understanding for the selected reserve MGIB on 28 June 2012. c. She signed the Guard Annex (Enlistment/Reenlistment Agreement ARNG Service Requirements and Methods of Fulfillment) on 28 June 2012. d. Her DD Form 1966 (Record of Military Processing), dated 28 June 2012 is void of the SLRP entitlement. e. DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 7 October 2012 shows she was honorable released from active duty training for completion of required active service and transferred to the 2-75th Recruiting and Retention (R&R) Battalion RSP (recruit sustainment program) in Glasgow, KY. f. Orders, dated 17 February 2016 show she was ordered to active duty for training to attend the basic officer leader course. g. DA Form 71 (Oath of Office) shows she was appointed a Reserve Commissioned Officer in the grade of second lieutenant 2LT/0-1 on 18 March 2016. h. Orders, dated 7 April 2016 show she was honorably discharged from the ARNG and in the U.S. Army Reserve. She was discharged to accept an appointment as commissioned /warrant officer; in her current organization ARNG unit. 5. The request for ETP for SLRP, dated 4 November 2015 to retain the $50,000.00 SLRP was disapproved for the discrepancy: written agreement cannot be located in the Soldier’s records which violated Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 1205.21, paragraph 6.2 (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). The ARNG does not have the authority to approve the request. No further documentation is on file that supports an incentive being offered to the Soldier at the time of her enlistment. 6. DODI 1205.21 (Reserve Component Incentive Programs Procedures) states: a. Paragraph 6.2, 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. The agreement must clearly specify the terms of the Reserve Service commitment that authorizes the payment of the incentive. b. Paragraph 6.6.2, 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. 7. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity, which is that what the Army did was correct. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found the relief was warranted. The applicant contentions were carefully considered. The Board determined that it was through no fault of the applicant’s that her SLRP Addendum was not properly filed in her military record. 2. Notwithstanding the denial of the ETP by the NGB, and in view of the aforementioned above, not honoring the applicant’s SLRP for which she contracted for would be contrary to equity and good conscience and against the best interest of the Army. The Board agreed that her record should be corrected to show the applicant signed up for and was approved for the SLRP in the amount of 90 percent of her student loans, not to exceed $50,000. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : X :X :X GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing an exception to policy was approved authorizing her to retain the SLRP incentive. Retroactively pay the applicant’s qualifying student loan in accordance with the governing policy at the time. That the applicant is, fully eligible to receive the SLRP she contracted for on 28 June 2012 for payment of 90% of her preexisting student loans, not to exceed $50,000.00. 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. Title 10, USC, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within three years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. DODI 1205.21 (Reserve Component Incentive Programs Procedures) states: a. Paragraph 6.2, 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. The agreement must clearly specify the terms of the Reserve Service commitment that authorizes the payment of the incentive. b. Paragraph 6.6.2, 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. 3. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity, which is that what the Army did was correct. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170010061 9 1