RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:


         BOARD DATE: 29 JUNE 2004
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003096503


         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Samuel Crumpler		Chairperson
Mr. Lester Echols		Member
Ms. Linda Barker		Member

         The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any).


1. The applicant requests payment of student loans under the provisions of the student loan repayment program.

2. The applicant made no statement, but deferred to his mother, to whom he had granted full power of attorney to act for him.

3. The applicant provides a statement from his mother, copy of documents from Sallie Mae Servicing concerning his student loans, a copy of his enlistment documents depicted herein, and a copy of the power of attorney granting his mother authority to act for him.

4. The applicant's mother requests that her son's student loans, in the amount of $35,800.00, be paid in full.

a. She states that her son, now serving in Iraq, was notified prior to his deployment, that the Army might not pay for all of his student loans, contradicting the information provided him prior to his enlistment that the Army would pay all of his student loans. She stated that the Army recruiter assured her son, herself, and his father, on several occasions that all his loans would be paid in full over his three year enlistment period, explaining that the Army and her son had a binding contract, and as long as it was stated in writing that the loans would be paid, the Army would stand behind the contract. The recruiter asked her son to bring all, not some or part, but all of his promissory notes. Her son did so, and the recruiter said that he would submit the documents to the proper agency.

b. She states that she has been working with the staff in the Human Resources Command Education Incentives and Counseling Branch to ensure that all the needed documents are submitted to complete the request for payment. She states that her son was grossly misinformed, and that they were led to believe that there would be no problem [in getting his loans paid].

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1. The applicant enlisted in the Army Reserve Delayed Entry Program (DEP) for eight years on 25 February 2002. At the time of his enlistment, he completed certain enlistment documents:

         a. Statement of Understanding – Army Policy, USAREC (United States Army Recruiting Command) Addendum to DD Form 1966 series, showing that he enlisted for a specific military occupational specialty (MOS), a cash bonus, and for the Army student loan repayment program, acknowledging that he had to bring copies of all his student loan promissory notes when he reported to the MEPS (Military Entrance Processing Station) for his active duty ship date.
         b. Statement of Enlistment, United States Army Delayed Entry Program, DA Form 3286-59, showing that he enlisted for the Army Incentive Enlistment Program (SLRP and cash bonus).

         c. Statement of Understanding, United States Army Incentive Program, DA Form 3286-66, showing that he enlisted for the loan repayment program. That statement also indicates that under the Loan Repayment Program (LRP) the government would repay a designated portion of any loan he incurred that was made, insured, or guaranteed, under Part B of the Higher Education Act of 1975 (Guaranteed Student Loan) or any loan under Part E of such act (National Direct Student Loan) after 1 October 1975 and before he enlisted into the Regular Army. Other provisions of that contract concerned the portion or amount of loan that may be paid, the timing of the repayment, the loan limit that could be repaid, etc.

         d. DD Form 2366 (Montgomery GI Bill Act of 1984) (MGIB), indicating that he declined to participate in the MGIB.

2. The applicant was discharged from the DEP upon his enlistment in the Regular Army for three years on 14 January 2003. Upon his enlistment he completed certain documents:

         a. Record of Military Processing – Armed Forces of the United States, DA Form 1966 series. DA Form 1966/3 shows that the applicant enlisted for a cash bonus and the LRP.

         b. DD Form 2366 (Montgomery GI Bill Act of 1984) (MGIB), in which he stated that he was enlisting for the LRP and therefore was disenrolling from the MGIB [a requirement for an individual enlisting for the LRP].

         c. Loan Repayment Program Inprocessing Counseling (USARC Form 1232, dated 1 July 2002) showing that he stated he understood that only certain loans qualified for the LRP. The types of such loans were listed.

3. Documents from Sallie Mae Servicing as of September 2003 show that applicant had loans in excess of $30,000.00, and that the loans are signature loans.

4. In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Human Resources Command Education Incentives and Counseling Branch, which recommended disapproval of the applicant's request, citing the terms as outlined in his enlistment contract concerning the LRP. That branch also stated that based on the available documentation, the signature loans with Sallie Mae Servicing Corporation did not qualify for repayment under the LRP, and that there were no exceptions to the law to allow payment for non-qualifying loans. The branch did indicate that he did have loans other than the signature loans that did qualify for repayment under the LRP, and that the appropriate form would be forwarded to him in order for him to initiate the payment process. The branch made reference to the USARC Form 1232, which USARC created to aid the Soldier during enlistment, stating that the applicant's completion of that form shows that he understood which loans qualified for payment. The Branch stated, however, that if the Board decided to grant compensation, that any payment be made based on the information in the applicant's case paperwork, to the tune of $31,436.70.

5. A copy of the advisory opinion was furnished the applicant on 28 October 2003 for his information and possible rebuttal. Neither he nor his mother responded.

6. The LRP is an educational enlistment incentive, which provides for payment of a percentage of the unpaid principal of eligible student loans for each year of active duty a soldier completes. Title 10, United States Code, section 2171, limits loans that are eligible for repayment under the LRP to those made, insured, or guaranteed under the Higher Education Act of 1965.

7. Army Regulation 601-210, chapter 6, specifies what forms are to be completed when a person enlists in the Army. Those forms include the DA Form 3286 and the DA Form 1966 which show which options have been selected by the person enlisting. Only the options selected on that form are considered valid and will be honored by the Government.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS :

1. The loans that the applicant wants the Army to pay are apparently signature loans, not eligible for payment under the LRP. The applicant's enlistment contract, which he completed in February 2002, shows that he stated that he understood that only certain loans would be paid by the Army under the LRP. While it is unfortunate that the applicant might not have comprehended that his signature loans were not payable under the LRP, the Army has lived up to the provisions of his enlistment contract, and there is no evidence, and neither the applicant nor his mother has submitted any, to show that the applicant's recruiter or other responsible personnel assured him that all his student loans would be paid by the government. His mother's contentions are not disputed; however, she has not submitted any evidence to show that the applicant was ill informed, misinformed, or misled.

---

2. Consequently, the applicant's request for payment of all his student loans cannot be granted.

BOARD VOTE:

________ ________ ________ GRANT RELIEF

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___SC __ ___LE___ ___LB __ DENY APPLICATION

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.





                  ___ Samuel Crumpler___
                  CHAIRPERSON

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003096503
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20040629
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	112.12
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.