RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00310 (Case 2)
            INDEX CODE:  128.14

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES



_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS:

Reimbursement of education loans.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During the time he was erroneously separated  from  the  military,  he
incurred a student loan debt.  Due  to  his  unemployment  status  and
since he was no longer on active duty,  there  was  no  financial  aid
provided over the two years that it took to have him  reinstated  back
on active duty.

All he is asking for is the amount that would have been  paid  over  a
two-year  period  that  the  service  would  have  covered.   He   was
unsuccessful in obtaining  relief  from  the  Department  of  Veterans
Affairs (DVA) and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS).

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal  statement
and additional documents associated  with  the  issues  cited  in  his
contentions.  The applicant’s complete submission,  with  attachments,
is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Texas Air National Guard  (TXANG)  on  1
Nov 84.

On 8 Aug 97, the applicant, who was then serving on active duty  under
Title 32, USC, Section 502(f), was released from active  duty  in  the
grade of technical sergeant (E-6) under the provisions of ANGI  36-101
(misconduct) and transferred to the State of Texas ANG.

On 2 Jun 99,  the  applicant  applied  to  the  Air  Force  Board  for
Correction  of  Military  Records  (AFBCMR)   requesting   appropriate
military points for retirement purposes; promotion to master sergeant;
back pay, with interest and entitlements; the narrative reason on  his
DD Form 214 be changed; early  retirement  or  reinstatement  for  the
remainder of his enlistment; and, punitive and  compensatory  damages.
On 30  Nov  99,  the  AFBCMR  considered  and  partially  granted  the
applicant's request (refer to the Record of Proceedings (ROP),  Docket
Number 99-01489, at Exhibit B.

Information extracted from applicant’s initial AFBCMR  appeal  reveals
that the 4 Sep 97 letter of notification, recommending the applicant’s
administrative separation from the TXANG and Reserve of the Air Force,
was withdrawn.  The applicant was subsequently offered an  E-6  Active
Guard Reserve (AGR) position at Ellington Field, TX.  He was  promoted
through the AFBCMR process to the grade of master sergeant (E-7), with
an effective date and date of rank of 1 Nov 97.

On 31 May 01, the applicant was relieved from his assignment under the
provisions of AFI 36-3209 (Retirement - Active  Guard  Reserve  (AGR))
and honorably discharged  from  the  TXANG.   On  1  Jun  01,  he  was
transferred to the Air Force Reserve and his name was  placed  on  the
Reserve Retired List.  He had completed a total of 20 years, 11 months
and 29 days of satisfactory Federal service.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPAT recommends the application be denied.  DPPAT stated that
although the applicant may or may not have attended school  or  sought
loans while on active duty, such action was not directly tied  to  the
issues in his previous AFBCMR application  (Docket  Number  99-01489).
The applicant made a conscious choice to obtain  education  loans  and
enroll in school during  the  time  he  was  separated  from  the  Air
National Guard.  The applicant does not show evidence of  any  attempt
to  seek  student  financial  aid  through  means  other  than  loans.
Although the applicant is not eligible  for  GI  Bill  benefits  (they
expired in Dec 85), he could have sought financial assistance  through
grants, scholarships  and  state  programs.   The  applicant  did  not
present evidence of the loans or  their  amounts.   The  repayment  of
education loans--especially  those  for  dropped  courses--voluntarily
obtained by the applicant does not seem  to  be  an  entitlement  that
qualifies for repayment by  the  Federal  Government.   If  the  Board
approves the applicant’s request, DPPAT recommends the Board ascertain
the amount of loans, ensure the applicant’s enrollment in  school  and
ensure payment is made directly to the lender.

The HQ AFPC/DPPAT evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and indicated that, in Jan
94, he utilized the Hazlewood Act while attending a community college.
 In the spring of 1995, he began the pursuit of a  Bachelor’s  Degree,
utilizing grants to fund the  beginning  phase  of  his  degree  plan.
Shortly thereafter, he was refused grants because of his earnings  and
was referred to the Base Education Office.  Through the Base Education
Office, he was granted 15  hours  per  calendar  year  of  educational
benefits.  During this time, he was transferred to Fort Bliss, TX, and
was scheduled to receive financial assistance while attending El  Paso
Community College and the  University  of  Texas  at  El  Paso.   Upon
erroneously being separated from  active  duty  status,  his  pay  was
terminated, which meant he had to drop the courses he was  taking  and
move back to his home of record.  He therefore was  not  going  to  be
able to finish the semester and the job situation was  moot  with  the
type of DD Form 214 he was given.    As soon as he was  able  to  draw
unemployment, the only option he had to  complete  his  education  was
through the school loan program.  When he used the  Hazlewood  Act  in
1994, he was under the impression that it could only be used once.

To insinuate that the military should have no responsibility regarding
this matter is absurd because if it weren’t for the unit commander  he
would not have to file any actions for  reimbursement.   He  does  not
want the money, he would like the payment sent to the lender.   He  is
requesting the amount for  30  hours  in  which  he  would  have  been
entitled to for the period  of  time  that  he  was  off  active  duty
fighting for reinstatement.  The applicant’s complete submission, with
attachments, is at Exhibit E.

Pursuant to the Boards request, the applicant provided copies  of  his
loan statements.  The applicant is seeking to have the loans paid that
were incurred during the time he was erroneously separated from active
duty (two consecutive years before the AFBCMR corrected his record and
he was reinstated on active duty).  The loan periods were 9/97 through
1/99.  He was released from active duty on 7 Aug 97 and reinstated  on
15 Aug 99 and graduated in May 00.   He  is  not  seeking  monies  for
personal use and prefers that all  monies  be  directed  to  the  loan
guarantor.  The applicant’s complete submission, with  attachments  is
at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the  following  advisory  opinion  is
provided concerning the educational benefits the applicant would  have
been entitled to while in an active duty status.

HQ AFPC/DPPAT stated that, while serving on extended active duty in an
Active Guard Reserve (AGR)  status,  the  applicant  was  eligible  to
participate in an active  duty  component’s  Tuition  Assistance  (TA)
program.  Or, as a TX veteran, he could have taken  advantage  of  the
State’s Hazlewood Act benefit.  The applicant indicated in his 11  Apr
92 letter that he received Army TA (when stationed at Ft.  Bliss)  for
the Fall 1977 semester.  Had he not been separated from  active  duty,
the TA program would have paid up to $187.50  per  semester  hour  for
tuition and fees; the applicant would have  paid  all  required  costs
above this amount.  There was no state-supported  TX  ANG  TA  program
during the years the applicant attended  school.   The  Hazlewood  Act
exempts users at TX state colleges or universities from paying tuition
and certain fees and is available to active duty personnel as well  as
veterans.  The applicant could have used the benefit  while  attending
Sam Houston State University (SHSU).  DPPAT stated that the disclosure
statement and repayment schedule submitted by the applicant shows  his
loans were consolidated.  DPPAT recommends the applicant  provide  the
Board with copies of promissory notes and disbursement statements from
EDUCAID/AFSA, the original lender.  These documents  will  detail  the
amounts paid to SHSU and  when,  as  well  as  the  original  interest
amount.  The loans now include additional interest resulting from  the
consolidation.  The HQ AFPC/DPPAT evaluation is at Exhibit G.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of  the  additional  Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to
applicant on 20 September 2002 for review and response.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit H).
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the  existence  of  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case.
However, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
office (HQ AFPC/DPPAT) that, the disclosure  statement  and  repayment
schedules the applicant submitted contain additional interest payments
resulting from the consolidation  of  his  loans;  therefore,  it  was
suggested that he submit promissory notes and disbursement  statements
from the original lender, which would specify the amounts paid to  the
Sam Houston State University (SHSU) and the  dates,  as  well  as  the
original interest amount.  Noting that the  suggested  documents  were
not submitted, the applicant was given another opportunity to  provide
the cited documents; however, as of this date, no additional  evidence
has  been  submitted.   In  view  of  the  foregoing,  we  find   that
insufficient evidence  has  been  provided  upon  which  to  favorably
consider this application.  Should the  applicant  provide  sufficient
evidence to substantiate expenses up to the amount he would have  been
reimbursed  by  Tuition  Assistance,  the  Board  may  be  willing  to
reconsider his appeal.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not  been
shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s)   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of material error  or  injustice;  that  the
application was denied without a personal  appearance;  and  that  the
application will only be reconsidered upon  the  submission  of  newly
discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.
_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 9 January 2003 and 6  February  2003,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
                  Mr. Thomas J. Topolski Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in  connection  with
AFBCMR Docket Number 02-00310.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Jan 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAT, dated 19 Mar 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Apr 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter from Applicant, dated 11 Apr 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit F.  Letter from Applicant, dated 7 Aug 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAT, dated 9 Sep 02.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Sep 02




                                   WAYNE R. GRACIE
                                   Panel Chair