ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  11 December 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20170010101


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  an exception to policy (ETP) for recoupment of her Student 
Loan Repayment Program (SLRP) incentive.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	(online) DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	Annex L to DD Form 4 (Enlisted Loan Repayment Program Addendum)
*	Joint Forces Headquarters Indiana Orders 037-1003
*	Memorandum for Record (MFR)
*	National Guard Bureau (NGB) memorandum
*	Email correspondence, dated mid-April 2014 through October 2019

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, in effect:

   a.	In 2012, she began the process to receive payments for her SLRP.  However, at 
the time, the lender would not complete a DA Form 2475 (Department of Defense 
Education Loan Repayment (LRP) Annual Application) due to her unit’s unwillingness to 
complete Section 1 (Personnel Office Verification).  
   
   b.	While attached to the RSD in Elkhart, Indiana in January 2014, her 
noncommissioned officer in charge (NCOIC), requested a status on her SLRP 
payments.   He was told by the Joint Forces Headquarters J1 Education SLRP manager 
that her payment was rejected due to her Retirement Points Accounting Management 
(RPAM) statement, which reflects unsatisfactory numbers in the Inactive Duty Training 
(IDT) section.  A memorandum from the commander was verifying that her absence 
from drill was due to her being in labor.  By February 2014, none of her information or 
applications were uploaded into the system correctly; therefore, payments had not been 
made.  
   
   c.	By August of 2014, SSG B___ assisted her with obtaining, correctly filling out, 
and submitted the necessary forms to the Education office.  The application was denied 
based on the fact that she was not authorized SLRP.  After some research, it was 
discovered that she was not in the Guard Incentive Management Subsystem (GIMS).  
At the time of her enlistment, systems were in the midst of transitioning to the GIMS.  
   
   d.	Later, it was discovered by a contractor that she was coded incorrectly for the 
missed drill and also that she had a good retirement year for 20120809-20130808.  On 
18 September 2014, SGT A___ stated that the SLRP payments would take a little 
longer than usual and that it would be an additional three months before the student 
loan company received it.  During this time, another issue with her SLRP was 
discovered. 
   
   e.	She submitted an exception to policy (ETP) to receive the entire $50,000.00 per 
her contract agreement, along with supporting documents.  However, there was no 
change in status nor were any payments made.   On 26 January 2016, SFC Y___was 
informed that the applicant’s SLRP was good to go and that the Education office 
corrected everything.  He also stated that although the ETP was correct, it was never 
submitted. 
   
   f.	On 8 August 2016, she was informed that the ETP was denied and that she was 
no longer eligible for SLRP because was in a MOS 00F position, while attached to the 
RSD.  According to her Annex L, she could be attached to the RSD with the stipulation 
that she would have to complete instructor school.  Instructor school was not available 
for the first two years of her attachment.  When the slot became available, she was six 
months pregnant; therefore, she could not go.  She was scheduled to attend the 
following summer (2016); but was dropped due to no fault of her own.

3.  The applicant provides:

   a.	Annex L to DD Form 4, signed 9 August 2011, reflects the applicant 
acknowledged that she was enlisting, affiliating, reenlisting, or extending into a valid 
incentive eligible position.  Excess, over-strength, and manually loaded vacancies are 
not authorized incentives.  She will remain in an authorized position for her entire 
service obligation.  Section V – Loan Repayment, paragraph 8 states, “Soldier must be 
DMOSQ to receive SLRP payment.” Section XV – Statement of Understanding, 
paragraph 2 states, “I am responsible for ensuring that a completed DA Form 2475, 
DoD Educational Loan repayment Program Annual Application, has been received by 
the State Incentive Manager prior to each anniversary payment date.”
   
   b.	Joint Forces Headquarters Indiana Orders, dated 6 February 2014, reflects she 
was transferred from Edinburgh, Indiana to South Bend, Indiana effective 1 February 
2014.  Assign/loss reason indicates “individual’s request.”
   c.	Memorandum for Record (MFR), dated 15 April 2014, authored by the applicant, 
states she signed for a 6-year Student Loan Repayment Program Incentive for the 
bonus amount of up to $50,000.00 of Student Loan repayment.  She was only serving at 
the RSD, as cadre, on a temporary basis in order for her to gain more leadership skills 
and to fill a female cadre vacancy.  She did not reclassify to be in the position.  The 
RSD staff was trying to get her reserved for the RSP Cade course in order for her to 
receive her certification as an instructor; however, they have been unable to.  Once she 
goes to the school, she will be certified as an instructor for the RSD.  Upon completing 
two years in the slot, she will return to the paragraph and line number (position) that she 
enlisted into at the time of her enlistment.
   
   d.	National Guard Bureau memorandum, dated 8 August 2016, Subject: Request 
for Exception to Policy (ETP) for Student Loan Repayment Program (SLRP), reflects the 
ETP to retain the $50,000.00 SLRP is disapproved based on the voluntary transfer out 
of the contracted military occupational specialty (MOS), which violates the Department 
of Defense 1205.21, paragraph 6.6.2.  In addition to the violation, the Army National 
Guard does not have the authority to approve the request.  
   
   e.	Extensive email correspondence, dated between mid-April 2014 through October 
2019, reflects numerous discussions between the Indiana Army National Guard 
(INARNG) SLRP manager and the applicant’s NCOIC.  
   
   f.	On 27 September 2019, email correspondence from the NGB Operations NCO to 
the Senior HR Officer/ABCMR Appeals Analyst Special Actions Branch Policy Division, 
discusses the applicant’s request to receive the remainder of her SLRP payments; 
however, “based on her documents and assignment history she broke her contract by 
switching from her bonus MOS (36B) to 00F in a recruiting unit.”  Further stating, the 
applicant states her addendum contains a provision that allows her to do this as long as 
she went to instructor school.  She was unable to attend instructor school due to 
extenuating circumstances.  
   
   g.	On 3 October 2019, an email from the INARNG Education Services Officer to the 
Senior HR Officer/ABCMR Appeals Analyst Special Actions Branch Policy Division, 
reflects the following key points:

      (1)	The applicant shows due diligence and on two occasions INARNG 
Education office, SGT V___ and SGT J___ informed the applicant and her unit that they 
were fine. 
      
      (2)	On 29 April 2014 SGT V___ states, that if the unit amends the transfer order 
that placed the applicant in the RSD they could avoid an ETP.  The unit amended the 
order, which led them to believe they were fine. 
      
      (3)	On 8 May 2014, SGT J___ informs the unit the applicant was good.  The 
applicant receives payment for fiscal years 13 and 14.  In August 2014, the applicant 
was not getting paid due to missing MUTA's during the fiscal year, which was eventually 
resolved by SGT A___.
      
      (4)	Both the applicant and the unit believe the various issues have been 
resolved.  Therefore, they discontinue further efforts to get the applicant instructor 
qualified.
      
      (5)	By 2015-16, the applicant still has not attended the instructor course, which 
then required an ETP to be submitted.  The ETP was denied.
      
      (6)	It was recommended that the INARNG stand by what they wrote at the time 
the ETP was submitted, which stated the applicant was aware of the requirement of 
becoming branch qualified, but failed to get qualified.

4.  A review of the applicant’s service record shows:

   a.	She enlisted in the Army National Guard on 9 August 2011.  
   
   b.	Headquarters, Indiana National Guard Orders, dated 15 November 2017, reflects 
the applicant was honorably discharged from the Army National Guard and assigned to 
the United States Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group, effective  
8 August 2017.
   
   c.	U.S. Army Human Resources Command Orders, dated 13 August 2019, reflects 
the applicant was honorably discharged from the United States Army Reserve, effective 
13 August 2019.

5.  Department of Defense 1205.21 reissues reference (a) to update policy, assign 
responsibilities, and prescribe procedures under reference (b) for management of the 
Reserve components incentive programs.  

6.  Army Regulation 600-4 (Remission or Cancellation of Indebtedness) in accordance 
with the authority of Title 10 USC, section 4837, the Secretary of the Army may remit or 
cancel a Soldier’s debt to the U.S. Army if such action is in the best interest of the 
United States, the debt was incurred while on active duty or in an active status, and the 
Soldier received an honorable discharge (if separated from active duty).  Under Title 10, 
United States Code (USC), section 4837 a debt acknowledged as valid may be remitted 
or cancelled.

BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.  After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found the 
relief was not warranted.  The applicant’s contentions were carefully.  The Board notes 
that according to the applicant’s contract, she could be attached to the recruiting school 
detachment with the stipulation that she would have to complete instructor school.  
Although instructor school was not available for the first two years of her attachment, 
when the slot became available, she was six months pregnant; therefore, she could not 
go.  She was scheduled to attend the following summer (2016); but was dropped due to 
no fault of her own.  However, the Board notes that she never became qualified in the 
MOS she signed up for to receive her SLRP.  The Board determined that there was 
insufficient evidence to show an error or injustice.


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.  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 Army Board for Correction of Military Records 
(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.  Department of Defense 1205.21, 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.

3.  Army Regulation 600-4 (Remission or Cancellation of Indebtedness) in accordance 
with the authority of Title 10 USC, section 4837, the Secretary of the Army may remit or 
cancel a Soldier’s debt to the U.S. Army if such action is in the best interests of the 
United States, the debt was incurred while on active duty or in an active status, and the 
Soldier received an honorable discharge (if separated from active duty).  Under Title 10, 
United States Code (USC), section 4837 a debt acknowledged as valid may be remitted 
or cancelled.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20170010101

6

1