RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            09 SEPTEMBER 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003099083


      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. James Vick                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. James Anderholm               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Linda Simmons                 |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

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

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  In effect, the applicant requests that all her student loans be repaid
by the Army.

2.  The applicant states that is unjust that the Army is only repaying
about $11,800.00 of her student loans.  She submitted $49,000.00 worth of
student loans to recruiting personnel [for repayment].  She and her husband
joined the military for one specific purpose, which was to reduce their
debt, which consisted of a consolidated loan of about $49,000.00, which was
in her name.

      a.  Their recruiter recommended that they both enlist, that she leave
all of the loans in her name in order to get the repayment option, and that
her husband enlist and obtain benefits under the GI bill.  She had no
desire to join, but wanted the loans repaid, even though they and their
parents were not sure that the military would pay off the loans, because
they were her husband's loans.  The recruiting personnel assured her that
because the loans were under her name, they would be repaid.

      b.  Her husband enlisted for three years, but for some reason she had
to enlist for four years, but now realizes that she was lied to.  They were
also misinformed concerning her husband's specialty.  They have tried to
get this changed, but were told he would have to wait several months.  Now
they both have an enlistment contract.  She feels that she is no longer
obligated to fulfill her contract.  She should have been given a three-year
enlistment and should have been informed that her loans would not be
repaid.  Her husband should have had the option to enroll in the loan
repayment plan.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of a USAREC (United States Army
   Recruiting Command) Form 1232 (Loan Repayment Program Inprocessing
   Counseling), a copy of a Department of Education form, dated 16 August
   2002, showing the applicant's consolidated direct loans, copies of
   Federal Direct Consolidated Loan Application and Promissory Notes showing
   her and her husband's loans, indicating she requested that the loans be
   consolidated.  The requests were dated in 1999 and 2001; and a
   notification from the Federal Direct Loan Program dated 16 August 2002 of
   the amounts of her consolidated loans.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's Federal Direct Consolidation Loan, Application and
Promissory Note, indicate that she had student loans in excess of
$11,000.00 and her husband in excess of $41,000.00, and that she and her
husband wanted to consolidate their student loans.  On 16 August 2002 she
was informed of the status of her consolidated loan, an amount in excess of
$49,000.00.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Army Reserve Delayed Entry Program (DEP)
in pay grade E-4 for 8 years on 26 August 2002.  Her enlistment contract
shows that contingent upon her enlistment in the Regular Army for 4 years
she would receive a cash bonus of $17,000.00, be enlisted under the
provisions of the student loan repayment program (SLRP), and attend a
school for training in the food service career management field.  She
stated that she had read and understood each of the statements concerning
her enlistment and in the          DD Form 1966 series (enlistment
contract), signed by her, and understood that those statements were
intended to constitute all promises whatsoever concerning her enlistment.
She indicated, by placing her initials in the appropriate block, that there
were no other promises or representations of commitment made in connection
with her enlistment.

3.  The applicant was discharged from the DEP upon her enlistment in the
Regular Army for four years on 22 January 2003.  At the time of her
enlistment she signed a "Statement of Understanding, United States Army
Incentive Program, DA Form 3286-66," showing that she 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 she 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 she 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.

4.  The USAREC Form 1232 that she submits with her request shows that she
indicated that she understood that only certain types of loans, listed
therein, qualified for the loan repayment program.

5.  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.

6.  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.

7.  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 her enlistment contract concerning the LRP, and stating that
there was no statutory or regulatory authority to repay the applicant's
spouse, sibling, or other educational loans not specifically used for the
Soldier concerned.  The opinion went on to state that an exception to
policy could be made [for her husband] to enroll an individual in the LRP
if there was some documentation or evidence supporting a claim for
eligibility.  Eligibility criteria include a score of 50 or above on the
Armed Forces Qualification Test and a requirement to disenroll from the
Montgomery GI Bill.  The Education Incentives and Counseling Branch
indicated that records shows that the applicant's husband did not meet the
eligibility criteria for the LRP, and was therefore not offered the
program.  The opinion indicated that the total remaining original unpaid
principal for her portion of the consolidated loan was $11,480.77 and that
appropriate payments were being authorized toward her qualifying loans.
The Branch stated that if the Board did authorize any compensation for the
spouse's portion of the consolidated loan, $41,514.29, the amount
authorized be sent directly to the applicant.

8.  In response thereof, the applicant stated that she had read and
understood the information provided in the advisory opinion; however, the
military should still be responsible to pay those loans through some sort
of program.  She stated that she and her husband were falsely enlisted on
the premise that their student loans would be paid, and if that was not the
case then they have been misled and they should no longer have to fulfill
their end of the [enlistment] contract.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's enlistment contract, which she completed in January
2003, shows that she stated that she understood that only certain loans
would be paid by the Army under the LRP.  The provisions of that contract,
and the provisions concerning the LRP were confined only to her enlistment.
 While it is unfortunate that the applicant might not have comprehended
that her husband's loans were not payable under the LRP, the Army has lived
up to the provisions of her enlistment contract, and there is no evidence,
and the applicant has not submitted any, to show that her recruiter or
other responsible personnel assured her that all their (applicant and
spouse) student loans would be paid by the government.  Her contentions are
not disputed; however, she has not submitted any evidence to show that she
was ill informed, misinformed, or misled.

2.  Furthermore, as indicated by the advisory opinion, her husband did not
meet the eligibility criteria for the loan repayment program; therefore, he
could not be enlisted under the provisions of the student loan repayment
program, and consequently, his portion of the consolidated loan could not
be repaid.

3.  The applicant's request cannot be granted.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___JV  __  __JA____  ___LS __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.





            _____James Vick________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2003099083                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040909                                |
|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.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]