RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            8 February 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20040001211


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Margaret K. Patterson         |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Shirley Powell                |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Susan A. 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 that his records be corrected to show he
enlisted for the Loan Repayment Program (LRP), not the Montgomery GI Bill
(MGIB).

2.  The applicant states that he believes he was not offered the LRP due to
an error at the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS).  In his
rebuttal to an advisory opinion, he stated that upon his enlistment in the
Regular Army from the Texas Army National Guard (TXARNG), he was informed
that he would not be allowed to enroll in the LRP due to his classification
as prior service.  The MGIB was not his original intention for enlistment.
Since he had already graduated from college, he was trying to receive the
LRP to pay back the student loans he acquired while in school.  At the time
of his enlistment, he was told he was classified as prior service; however,
he is listed on all military documents as non-prior service (NPS).

3.  The applicant further rebutted that Texas offers a grant to all
veterans who enlisted from the state.  The grant pays for all tuition and
fees to any state-funded university.  That fund makes the MGIB unnecessary
for him.  During his enlistment process, he was led to believe he was prior
service.  His Enlisted Record Brief shows that he was classified by the
MEPS as non-prior service.  The incentive for the month of January 2002 as
all NPS members were eligible for the LRP in the amount of $65,000 for a 3-
year enlistment.

4.  The applicant provides his RAGET (Regular Army Guaranteed Enlistment
Training) printout; his DD Form 2366 (Montgomery GI Bill Act of 1984
(MGIB)); U. S. Army Recruiting Command (USAREC) message 02-055 date time
group 041800 March 2002, subject:  Enlistment Incentives Effective 4 March
2002; and an extract from the Texas Education Code, Hazelwood-Hinson Act.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's ARNG enlistment contract is not available.  His DD Form
1966 (Record of Military Processing - Armed Forces of the United States)
shows his pay entry basic date as 27 July 2001.  His Standard Form 86
(Security Clearance Application) shows he served in the ARNG on 17
September 2001 to the present time.  The Remarks section of his DD Form
1966 shows he attended basic training from 17 September through 22 November
2001.

2.  On 9 February 2002, the applicant requested enlistment in the Regular
Army. On 20 March 2002, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years for
incentive options Station/Command/Unit/Area Enlistment Program, Higrad
(high graduate) bonus, and the MGIB.  USAREC Form 1150 (Statement of
Understanding – Army Policy USAREC Addendum to DD Form 1966 Series), in the
INCENTIVE INFORMATION section, shows he checked that he enlisted for the
Higrad bonus. It shows that he did not check that he enlisted for the LRP.
The reverse of his DA Form 3286-67 (Statement of Understanding – Army
Policy) shows that he checked "NO" for the LRP and "YES" to the MGIB.

3.  The applicant's RAGET printout shows his enlistment category as NPS.
His DD Form 1966 shows he had 69 days of prior service.

4.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was provided by the
Education Incentives and Counseling Branch, U. S. Total Army Personnel
Command.  That office noted that an exception to policy can be granted to
enroll an individual in the LRP only if there is some documentation or
evidence supporting the claim for eligibility.  Individuals enlisting with
the LRP as part of their Regular Army enlistment contract must meet certain
eligibility criteria.

5.  A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant.  He
rebutted as noted in APPLICANT STATES, above.

6.  Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment
Program) prescribes eligibility criteria governing the enlistment of
persons with or without prior service into the Regular Army and the U. S.
Army Reserve.  It defines NPS personnel for Regular Army enlistment, in
pertinent part, as personnel never having served in any component of the
Armed Forces or served less than 180 days active duty as a member of any
Component of the Armed Forces.  This is also known as "Glossary NPS."

7.  A consolidation of operational changes to Army Regulation 601-210 was
prepared in April 1999.  Table 9-4 (U. S. Army Incentive Enlistment Program
(Enlistment Bonus/Army College Fund/Loan Repayment Program) was amended to
add:  "Note:  Glossary NPS are not authorized to enlist for ACF (Army
College Fund), EB (enlistment bonus) and LRP."

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant had enlisted in the TXARNG and entered active duty to
attend basic training prior to his enlistment in the Regular Army in
February 2002.

2.  There was no error in this case.  The applicant was properly identified
as prior service regarding his eligibility for certain enlistment options,
to include the LRP.  Although he met the definition of "Glossary NPS," he
was not a true NPS and so was not eligible to enlist for the LRP incentive
program.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__mkp___  __sp____  __sap___  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.




              Margaret K. Patterson
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040001211                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050208                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |112.12                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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