RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           7 July 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040008110


      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:

|     |Mr. Melvin H. Meyer               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Eric N. Andersen              |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Carol A. Kornhoff             |     |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 repayment of her student loans under the Student
Loan Repayment Plan (SLRP) and payment of her enlistment bonus per her
enlistment contract.

2.  The applicant states that after she enlisted, her bonus unit of
assignment was deactivated and Soldiers were reassigned.  She was not
counseled verbally or in writing concerning bonus requirements and the
effect of a reassignment during the transition period.  She has not
received payment of any amount under the bonus agreement, the SLRP, or the
Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB).

3.  The applicant provides two letters, dated 11 October 1998 and 3 June
1999, from her team director; a DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic
Evaluation Report); and her 13 April 1996 U. S. Army Reserve (USAR)
enlistment contract.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred around June 1997.  The application submitted in this case is dated
7 September 2004.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  After having had prior service, the applicant reenlisted in the USAR on
        13 April 1996 for 6 years in a troop program unit (TPU).

4.  Section III of the applicant's DA Form 5261-2-R (Selected Reserve
Incentive Program – Reenlistment/Extension Bonus Addendum) shows she was
qualified [for a reenlistment] bonus in military occupational specialty
(MOS) 71D which had been approved as a bonus MOS and correlated to the
position vacancy for which she was reenlisting.

5.  Section VII, paragraph 2 of the applicant's DA Form 5261-2-R stated her
entitlement to the reenlistment cash bonus would be terminated should she
move to a non-bonus unit or MOS.  Her bonus entitlement would not terminate
if she moved to another Selected Reserve unit or MOS because her current
unit had been reorganized, relocated, redesignated, inactivated, or
converted, or if her move had been approved by the Chief, National Guard
Bureau or the Chief Army Reserve.

6.  Section VII, paragraph 3 of the applicant's DA Form 5261-2-R stated
that her entitlement to the bonus would be terminated if she failed to
become MOS qualified within 12 months, if required to perform on-the-job
training, or within 24 months if required to attend a service school.

7.  Section VII, paragraph 10 of the applicant's DA Form 5261-2-R stated
that if, as a member of the USAR entitled to bonus payments under the
Selected Reserve Incentive Program, she transferred to the Army National
Guard of the United States because her USAR TPU had been reorganized,
relocated, redesignated, inactivated, or converted, she would not terminate
her entitlement and would continue receiving bonus payments.

8.  Section III of the applicant's DA Form 5261-4-R (Student Loan Repayment
Program Addendum) shows she contracted for assignment to the 8th Legal
Support Organization, Team 3, Wichita, KS to serve in MOS 71D (Legal Clerk)
in which she was qualified and that was approved for a maximum of $10,000
in SLRP repayments.  Section IV of her DA Form 5261-4-R shows she agreed to
serve the entire term of service in the Selected Reserve in the MOS or unit
she indicated above.

9.  The applicant's bonus unit apparently reorganized around September
1996.  The applicant provided two letters from Lieutenant Colonel M___, the
Team Director of Team 3, 8th Legal Services Organization.  Lieutenant
Colonel M___ stated in both letters that the reorganization reduced the
number of enlisted persons in the unit from four to three persons.

10.  On 3 June 1997, the applicant enlisted in the ARNG for 6 years in MOS
92Y (Unit Supply Specialist).  She was honorably discharged on 2 June 2003
upon her expiration term of service.

11.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was provided by
the SLRP Program Manager, U. S. Army Human Resources Command – St. Louis,
MO.  That office contacted the Reserve Component Pay Support Office at Fort
McCoy, WI, which indicated that the applicant had not made any claim
against the SLRP while she was serving in the USAR.  Due to the barring
act, her statute of limitations expired in June 2003.

12.  A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for
comment or rebuttal.  She did not respond within the given time frame.

13.  On 10 June 2005, Lieutenant Colonel M___ was contacted by the Board
analyst.  He stated he remembered preparing the two letters and he
remembered the applicant.  He stated the applicant took a lot of time to
complete her education to become qualified in MOS 71D.  He forgets the
reasons she gave for not completing the education.  He stated that she was
not required to leave the unit because of the reorganization.  He would
have found room for her in that unit or one of their other units if she had
become qualified in an MOS (generally administrative in nature) they could
have used.

14.  A copy of the record of phone conversation was provided to the
applicant for comment or rebuttal.  She responded by providing the same
documents provided with her application plus one new document.  She
provided a DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) which
shows she completed the resident phase of the Legal Specialist Course on 1
November 1996.

15.  The SLRP provides for the repayment by the Government of a designated
portion of any outstanding student loan(s) secured after 1 October 1975.
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.  The
loan amount to be repaid is 15 percent of the original balance of the loan
plus accrued interest not paid by the Department of Education, or $500.00
plus the accrued interest not paid by the Department of the Education,
whichever is greater.  Payments will be made for each year of satisfactory
service in the Selected Reserve.  The maximum amount of loans against which
the 15 percent is computed will not exceed $10,000.  This equates to a
maximum annual repayment of $1,500 plus interest.  If the amount set for
repayment is less than $500.00, then $500.00 becomes the calculated amount
for repayment that year.  Disenrollment from the MGIB is required to be
eligible for the SLRP incentive.

16.  Army Regulation 135-7 prescribes policies and procedures for the
administration of the ARNG and the USAR incentive programs, including
repayment of student loans.  Paragraph 1-14.1 (Status of Incentives and
Entitlements on Unit Inactivation or Redesignation of the Selected Reserve
during the period 1 October 1991 through 30 September 1999), subparagraph
3(3)(a) states that, where a Selected Reserve Unit (USAR) is being
inactivated or relocated, or the Soldier is being removed…and the Soldier
cannot be reassigned or utilized in another unit of the same component, the
Soldier will be offered an opportunity to transfer to an Army National
Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) unit if otherwise eligible and approved
by the gaining ARNGUS command.  Paragraph 5-1.5.1a(2) states that a USAR
Soldier eligible for the SLRP at the $10,000 level will terminate
entitlement under the SLRP on transfer to the ARNGUS unless the transfer is
based on the provisions of paragraph 1-14.1 in circumstances not requiring
termination, or otherwise authorized by the Chief, National Guard Bureau.

17.  On 7 June 2005, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS)
informed the Board analyst that a review of the applicant's records
confirmed that she did not receive a reenlistment bonus payment.

18.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 611-21 (Military Occupational
Classification and Structure) states that formal training in MOS 71D is
required for award of the MOS.  Reserve Component personnel must complete
Phase I by completing the Legal Specialist (Reserve Component Basic
Correspondence Course and the Resident Course, Phase II.

19.  Title 31 U. S. Code, section 3702, also known as the barring act,
prohibits the payment of a claim against the Government unless the claim
has been received by the Comptroller General within 6 years after the claim
accrues. Among the important public policy considerations behind statutes
of limitations, including the 6-year limitation for filing claims contained
in this section of Title 31, U. S. Code, is relieving the government of the
need to retain, access, and review old records for the purpose of settling
stale claims, which are often difficult to prove or disprove.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  When the applicant reenlisted in the USAR in April 1996, her enlistment
contract showed she enlisted for a reenlistment bonus and for the SLRP.
Her enlistment contract also stated that if she transferred to the ARNGUS
because her USAR TPU had been reorganized, relocated, redesignated,
inactivated, or converted, she would not terminate her entitlement and
would continue receiving bonus payments.

2.  Army Regulation 135-7 states that, where a Selected Reserve Unit (USAR)
is being inactivated or relocated, or the Soldier is being removed…and the
Soldier cannot be reassigned or utilized in another unit of the same
component, the Soldier will be offered an opportunity to transfer to an
ARNGUS unit if otherwise eligible and approved by the gaining ARNGUS
command.  Paragraph 5-1.5.1a(2) states that a USAR Soldier eligible for the
SLRP at the $10,000 level will retain entitlement under the SLRP on
transfer to the ARNGUS if the transfer is based on the provisions of
paragraph 1-14.1 in circumstances not requiring termination.

3.  The applicant provided two letters from the Team Director of her unit,
who stated in both letters that a reorganization reduced the number of
enlisted persons in the unit from four to three persons.  However, on 10
June 2005 the
Team Director informed the Board analyst that the applicant was not
required to leave the unit because of the reorganization.  She had failed
to become qualified in the bonus MOS of 71D.  They would have retained her
in the unit had she become qualified in another administrative MOS they
could have used.

4.  The applicant provided a DA Form 1059 in response to the Team
Director's 10 June 2005 conversation with the Board analyst.  It is noted
that the DA Form 1059 indicated she had completed the resident phase (Phase
II) of the Legal Specialist Course.  It would be speculative to presume she
had completed Phase I (the correspondence course phase), and she did not
provide evidence to show she had completed Phase I or that she had been
awarded MOS 71D.  She provides no evidence other than the 11 October 1998
and 3 June 1999 letters from the Team Director which stated that the
reorganization reduced the number of enlisted persons in the unit from four
to three persons.  However, those letters did not specifically state that
she was required to leave the unit because of the reorganization.

5.  The applicant left the USAR to enlist in the ARNG in MOS 92Y.  She
contends she was not counseled verbally or in writing concerning bonus
requirements and the effect of a reassignment during the transition period.
 However, under the terms of her reenlistment contract she would not have
remained eligible for the reenlistment bonus or the SLRP even had she
remained with the USAR.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration around June 1997; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired around June 2000.  The applicant did not file within the 3-year
statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or
evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
failure to timely file in this case.

7.  Further, the applicant made no claim against the SLRP or for her
enlistment bonus within the six-year statute of limitations set forth in
the barring act and has provided no justification why her delay should be
excused.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__mhm___  __ena___  __cak___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that 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.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




            __Melvin H. Meyer_____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040008110                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050707                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |112.11                                  |
|2.                      |112.12                                  |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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