RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         6 October 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050011704


      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             |
|     |Ms. Yvonne Foskey                 |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Curtis Greenway               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Richard T. Dunbar             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Laverne V. Berry              |     |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 Loan Repayment Program (LRP).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that while deciding on whether to join
the Army as an officer or enlisted Soldier and inquiring about the LRP, he
was informed by the Cleveland Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS)
recruiters that only an enlisted Soldier would qualify for the LRP.  He
then asked his recruiters to verify if his loans with William D. Ford
Federal Direct and Citibank qualified for payment under the LRP.  He states
that both his recruiters and his MEPS counselor who rechecked the
qualifications informed him that his loans did in fact qualify for
repayment under the LRP.  However, shortly after he enlisted, he was
informed that while his William D. Ford loan qualified for repayment under
the LRP, his loan from Citibank did not.

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of his
application: Two Self-Authored Letters; U.S. Total Army Personnel Command
Memorandum, dated 3 January 2003; Citibank Letter, dated 31 July 2002; Two
DOD Educational Loan Repayment Program Annual Applications (DD Form 2475);
Citibank Letter, dated 12 September 2001; Enlistment Document (DD Form
4/3); Statement of Understanding (DA Form 3286-66); Montgomery GI Bill (DD
Form 2366); and Citibank Loan Statement.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s military records show that on 17 September 2001, he
enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years.  A Statement for Understanding –
United States Army Incentive Enlistment Program (Annex D) was prepared
during his enlistment processing shows the options and incentives he
contracted for during his enlistment processing.  The LRP, Option 9C, is
one of the incentives authorized.  The applicable LRP terms are listed in
paragraph 4 of this form.

2.  The LRP provisions of Annex D stated that the applicant understood he
must disenroll from the GI Bill at the time he entered active duty and if
he failed to do this he would not be eligible for the LRP.  It also
indicated that the applicant understood that the Government will repay a
designated portion of any loan he 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 he enlisted in the Army.
3.  Annex D further indicated that the applicant’s enlistment for the LRP
ensured him, provided he met and maintained the prescribed prerequisites,
that the portion or amount of his student loans 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, up to an amount of $65,000.00.
The applicant and a recruiting representative signed this document on 17
September 2001, the day the applicant departed for active duty.  There is
no indication in this Annex that any question was raised in regard to the
eligibility of his loans for repayment.

4.  On 17 September 2001, 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 LRP, but there were no entries regarding the
eligibility/ineligibility of any of his student loans.

5.  On 3 January 2003, the Chief, Education Incentives and Counseling
Branch, Human Resources Command (HRC) notified the applicant his Citibank
loan of $15,715.00 (maximum $65,000.00) did not qualify for repayment under
the LRP. The applicant was advised to apply to this Board if he believed he
was not properly counseled or that an error or injustice had occurred

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 (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 fail to meet specific qualifications for
options for which they applied and advise them of other available options.

7.  Table 9-4 of the enlistment regulation, in effect at the time of the
applicant’s enlistment, contained guidance on enlistment option program 9C
(Bonus/Army College Fund/Loan Repayment Program).  It contained specific
guidance pertaining to the LRP and indicated that the government would
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.

8.  Table 9-4 of the enlistment regulation further stipulated that Guidance
Counselors were required to confirm they accomplished all the processing
procedures by making the appropriate entries in the DD Form 1966.  This
included a statement regarding the applicant’s eligibility for the LRP,
which included any factors that could disqualify him from receiving the LRP
benefit, and ensuring the applicant’s acknowledgement of this fact was also
recorded in the remarks section of the DD Form 1966.

9.  The LRP 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

10.  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.  The record shows the applicant’s student loan did not meet the criteria
established by law and regulation to qualify for repayment by the Army
under the LRP.  The loan was 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.  The Statement of Understanding of the applicant’s enlistment contract
established a contractual agreement between the applicant and the Army, and
the record clearly shows the responsible recruiting officials failed to
make reference to any loans ineligible for payment under the LRP, as
evidenced by the absence of an entry in the remarks section of the DD Form
1966.

3.  In addition, the governing regulation requires Army Guidance Counselors
to 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,
the regulation in effect at the time of the applicant’s enlistment required
counselors to 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 loans on the DD Forms 1966/3 and 1966/4,
prepared on the day he departed for active duty.

4.  In view of the facts of this case, it appears 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 his own.
Given the failure on the part of government officials to follow their 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 his Statement of Understanding was amended to include the sentence,
“If a student loan is accepted by the official processing you for
enlistment as payable under the LRP 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 LRP
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 him the $15,715.00 due for the Citibank
CitiAssist loans.
BOARD VOTE:

___CG __  __RTD__  __LVB___  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 Statement of Understanding to include the
sentence, “If a student loan is accepted by the official processing you for
enlistment as payable under the LRP 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 LRP
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 $15,715.00 to the applicant as a result of this
correction, at the appropriate rate and manner.




                                  ____Curtis Greenway______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050011704                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/10/06                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |Active Duty                             |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schneider                           |
|ISSUES         1.1026   |112.1200.0000                           |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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