RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           30 March 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003091315


      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. Edmund P. Mercanti            |     |Analyst              |


  The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Melvin H. Meyer               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Allen L. Raub                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Larry C. Bergquist            |     |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).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that the student loans which were determined not
to be payable under the terms of the Loan Repayment Program (LRP) be paid.
In the alternative, she requests that she be allowed to enroll in the
Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB).

2.  The applicant states that, “I did not have the subtle differences
between the types of loans explained to me.  Had I known that my loans were
ineligible for repayment, I would not have declined enrollment into the
Montgomery GI Bill.”

3.  The applicant provides:  copies of select portions of her enlistment
contract; two letters from the Human Resources Command (HRC), Alexandria,
Virginia, which notified the applicant that some of her student loans
didn’t qualify for payment under the LRP since they were not made or
insured under the Higher Education Act of 1965; and, a letter from the
Inspector General’s office on the applicant’s installation which stated
that some of her loans didn’t qualify for payment under the LRP since they
were not made or insured under the Higher Education Act of 1965.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  She enlisted in the Regular Army for 5 years on 25 July 2001 in pay
grade
E-4.  At that time, she opted for the LRP and $20,000.00 cash bonus
enlistment incentives, and declined the MGIB.

2.  The LRP is an educational enlistment incentive which provides for
payment of
33 1/3 percent or $1,500.00, whichever is more, of the unpaid principal of
eligible student loans for each year of active duty a soldier completes.
When a soldier enlists for this option, he must disenroll from the MGIB.

3.  Title 10, U.S. 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.

4.  The Montgomery GI Bill (GI Bill), as outlined in Title 38, United
States Code, chapter 30, provides for soldiers who entered the service
after 30 June 1985, to contribute $1,200.00 during their first 12 months
service.  After completion of their service obligation, he or she is
entitled to up to 36 months of educational benefits.  The program is
administered by the Veterans Administration (VA).




5.  In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from
the HRC, Alexandria.  In that opinion, it was stated that some of the
applicant’s student loans didn’t qualify for payment under the LRP since
they were not made or insured under the Higher Education Act of 1965.  The
HRC continued that the applicant did have $19,590.18 in qualifying student
loans which were being paid under the LRP.  As a result, the HRC could not
allow the applicant to enroll in the MGIB since law prohibits affording an
enlistee both the MGIB and the LRP.  The HRC recommended disapproval of the
applicant’s request.  The applicant was furnished a copy of this advisory
opinion and was given an opportunity to submit a rebuttal.  She did not
respond.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  While it is unfortunate if the applicant did not understand that all of
her student loans would not be payable under the LRP, law prohibits the
payment of loans which were not made or insured under the Higher Education
Act of 1965.  As such, the HRC properly denied the applicant’s request to
have those loans paid.

2.  The HRC is also correct that law prohibits giving an enlistee both the
MGIB and the LRP.  As such, there are no provisions for granting the
applicant’s request to enroll in the MGIB.  It is noted, however, that if
that portion of her request had been approved, it would have resulted in a
collection being initiated against the applicant for any money paid to her
lending institutions under her LRP contract.

3.  It is also noted that the applicant received a $20,000.00 cash bonus
and her LRP is paying almost $20,000.00 of her student loans, a total of
almost $40,000.00.  There is no evidence or indication that these
incentives would not have been sufficient to induce the applicant to
enlist.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the
applicant’s request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___mm __  ___alr___  ____lcb__  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.





            _________Melvin H. Meyer_________
                    CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2003091315                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040330                                |
|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.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |