RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           1 February 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040000767


      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. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Walter T. Morrison            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. William D. Powers             |     |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.  The applicant requests, in effect, payment of a college loan under the
terms of the Student Loan Repayment Program (SLRP).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that information regarding
qualifications of her loans was not available to her or her recruiter prior
to her entering active duty.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement, a statement from her
recruiter, a statement of understanding from her parents and college first
program paperwork in support of her application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s military records show that on 12 May 2003, she enlisted
in the Regular Army for 5 years.  A DA Form 3286-66 (Statement of
Understanding United States Army Incentive Enlistment Program), confirms
the option and incentives the applicant contracted for during her
enlistment processing.  The SLRP is one of the incentives authorized and
the applicable SLRP terms are listed in paragraph 4 of this form.

2.  The SLRP provisions of Annex D state, in pertinent part, that the
applicant understood she must disenroll from the GI Bill at the time she
entered active duty and if she failed to do this she would not be eligible
for the SLRP.  It also indicated that the applicant understood that the
government will repay a designated portion of any loan she incurred that
was made, insured or guaranteed under Part B of the Higher Education Act
(Guaranteed Student Loan) or any loan under Part E of such act (National
Direct Student Loan) after
1 October 1975 and before she enlisted in the Army.

3.  Annex D further indicated that the applicant’s enlistment for the SLRP
ensured her, provided she met and maintained the prescribed prerequisites,
that the portion or amount of her student loan that could be repaid was 33
1/3 percent or $1,500, whichever was greater of the unpaid principal
balance for each year of service completed.  The applicant and the service
representative signed this document on the date she entered active duty, 12
May 2003, and there is no indication in this Annex that any question was
raised in regard to the eligibility of her loans for repayment.

4.  On 12 May 2003, the recruiting guidance counselor completed Section V
(Recertification) and Section VI (Remarks) of the Record of Military
Processing-Armed Forces of the United States (DD Forms 1966/3 and 1966/4).
These documents contained an entry confirming the applicant’s participation
in the SLRP, but there were no entries regarding the
eligibility/ineligibility of any of her student loans.

5.  On 4 March 2004, the Chief, Education Incentives and Counseling Branch,
Human Resources Command (HRC) notified the applicant her Citibank loan of
$5,546.30 did not qualify for repayment under the SLRP.  The applicant was
advised to apply to this Board if she believed she was not properly
counseled or that an error or injustice had occurred.

6.  The applicant’s recruiter provides a statement supporting the
applicant’s request.  The recruiter states that at the time she enlisted
the applicant, she was not real familiar with the loans that could be
repaid under the SLRP.  She states she had no intention of failing the
applicant, who was her first college enlistee under the SLRP.  She
concludes that she failed the applicant by not finding out what needed to
be done and her error in providing proper assistance to the applicant
should be considered.

7.  Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment
Program) prescribes eligibility criteria governing the enlistment of
persons, with or without prior service (PS), into the Regular Army (RA) and
the USAR.  Chapter 6, section II contains guidance on the Guidance
Counselor Processing Phase.  It states, in pertinent part, that Guidance
Counselors will use the supporting automated systems and updated regulatory
material applicable to MOS and available options to counsel all applicants
on their enlistment options.  It further states that Guidance Counselors
will counsel applicants who failed to meet specific qualifications for
options for which they applied; and advise them of other available options.


8.  Chapter 9 (Enlistment Programs/Options) indicates that these
programs/options are designed to merge valid Army requirements with
personal desires.  Table 9-4 contains guidance on enlistment option program

9C (Bonus/Army College Fund/Loan Repayment Program).  It contains specific
guidance pertaining to the SLRP and indicates that the government will
repay a designated portion of any loan incurred that was made, insured, or
guaranteed under part B of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (Guaranteed
Student Loan) or any loan under part E of such act (National Direct Student
Loan) after 1 October 1975 and before enlistment into the Regular Army.

9.  Table 9-4 also provides program processing procedures that require Army
Guidance Counselors to accomplish specific counseling and administrative
actions in connection with processing members enlisting with the SLRP
incentive.  These actions include ensuring members are disenrolled from the

GI Bill; verifying that members have qualifying loans; and advising members
of any loan that is not eligible.

10.  The same regulation further states that Guidance Counselors are
specifically required to confirm they accomplished all the processing
procedures by making the appropriate entries in the DD Form 1966 and DA
Form 3286-66.  This includes a statement regarding the applicant’s
eligibility for the SLRP, which includes any factors that may disqualify
them from receiving the SLRP benefit, and ensuring that the applicant’s
acknowledgement of this fact is also recorded in the remarks section of the
DD Form 1966.

11.  The SLRP is a Department of the Army enlistment option authorized by
Title 10 of the United States Code, section 2171 (10 USC 2171), which
provides the legal authority for the education loan repayment program for
enlisted members on active duty in specified military specialties.  The law
states, in pertinent part, that loans that qualify for repayment are
Guaranteed Student Loan/Stafford Loans, National Direct Student
Loan/Perkins Loans, William D. Ford Loans, Supplemental Loans for Students,
Federally Insured Student Loans (FISL), Parent Loan for Undergraduate
Students (PLUS), Auxiliary Loan Assistance for Students (ALAS), and
consolidated loans which fall under Title IV, Part B or E of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, or William D. Ford Loan.  It further specifies that
payment of such loans shall be made on the basis of each complete year of
service performed as an enlisted member in a military specialty specified
by the Army.  The Government will not make any payments to the soldier or
reimburse a soldier if he or she pays off a student loan.  The Government
will only pay the lending institution.

12.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552, the law which provides for the
Board, states that “The Secretary may pay, from applicable current
appropriations, a claim for the loss of pay, allowances, compensation,
emoluments, or other pecuniary benefits, or the repayment of a fine or
forfeiture, if, as a result of correcting a record under this section, the
amount is found to be due the claimant on account of his or another’s
service in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps or Coast Guard, as the
case may be.”
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  It is clear the applicant’s student loan did not meet the criteria
established by law and regulation to qualify for repayment by the Army
under the SLRP.  The loans were not made, insured, or guaranteed under
Title IV, Part B, D, or E of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as is
required.  However, this is not the overriding factor in this case given
the equity considerations and the resultant injustice.

2.  Annex D of the applicant’s enlistment contract established a
contractual agreement between the applicant and the Army and the record
clearly shows that the responsible recruiting officials failed to make
reference to any loans ineligible for payment under the SLRP, as evidenced
by the statement provided by the applicant’s recruiter.

3.  In addition, governing regulations require that Army Guidance
Counselors verify and counsel applicants on their eligibility for the
options they agreed to prior to their departing for active duty.  Further,
these counselors are obligated to advise applicants on any options they
agreed to, but are not eligible for, and on any available alternatives.
Finally, counselors must add entries to the enlistment contract and/or
associated documents confirming this verification of option and incentive
eligibility and/or counseling on ineligibility prior to a member departing
for active duty.  In this case, counselors failed to properly document the
ineligibility of the applicant's loan in the DD Forms 1966/3 and 1966/4
prepared on the day she departed for active duty.

4.  In view of the facts of this case, it appears that the applicant
entered into an erroneous contract with the Army, based on the failure of
recruiting personnel to follow established regulatory guidelines in
connection with this enlistment processing, through no fault of her own.
Given the failure on the part of government officials to follow its own
regulations during the applicant's enlistment processing, it is appropriate
to rectify the resultant injustice at this time.

5.  In doing so, the applicant's military records should be corrected to
show her DA Form 3286-66 was amended to include the sentence “If a student
loan is accepted by the official processing you for enlistment as payable
under the SLRP and the government fails to verify that the student loan
accepted actually is eligible under the Higher Education Act of 1965 and
such failure results in nonpayment of the loan by the SLRP or the repayment
or default of the loan, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records
may pay the loan, at its sole discretion, in accordance with Title 10, U.S.
Code, section 1552."  This would allow the Board to invoke that provision
and pay her the amount the lending institution would have been paid for the
Citibank Loan.
BOARD VOTE:

___JTM _  __WTM__  __WDP _  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to
warrant a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends
that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be
corrected by amending the applicant's DA Form 3286-66, Statement of
Understanding, U.S. Incentive Enlistment Program to include the sentence
“If a student loan is accepted by the official processing you for
enlistment as payable under the SLRP and the government fails to verify
that the student loan accepted actually is eligible under the Higher
Education Act of 1965, and such failure results in nonpayment of the loan
by the SLRP or the repayment or default of the loan, the Army Board for
Correction of Military Records may pay the loan, at its sole discretion, in
accordance with Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552."

2.  Further, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) shall remit
payment in the amount of $5,546.30 to the applicant as a result of this
correction.




            ____Walter T. Morrison ___
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040000767                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/02/01                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A                                     |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A                                     |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |N/A                                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |N/A                                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1. 1026  |113.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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