RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        15 March 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070001311


      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. Gerard W. Schwartz            |     |Acting Director      |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Margaret K. Patterson         |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Larry W. Racster              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Rodney E. Barber              |     |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, that his nonqualifying student loans
be paid under the Loan Repayment Program (LRP).

2.  The applicant states his private loans relate directly to the colleges
he attended.  During the recruitment process, he discussed at length all of
his options with his recruiter.  He was told the Army would pay up to
$60,000 (sic) of his student loans.  By joining the military, he knew that
all of his student loan debt would be taken care of.  He filled out all of
the proper paperwork and his recruiter then informed him that all of his
loans (both private and federal) would qualify for the LRP.

3.  The applicant states he was in the Delayed Entry Program (DEP) for
almost two months.  On the day he was scheduled to leave for basic
training, he was in the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) with
one of the counselors and was told that a big portion of his loans was not
going to be paid back.  He was a little shocked.  He called his recruiter,
who took him to discuss the issue with someone who informed the applicant
that the LRP did not cover private loans.

4.  The applicant states he was also told by the officer at the MEPS  that
since he had been misinformed about the repayment he was not obligated to
still join the Army and could be released if he chose.  At that point in
time, he already prepared himself to be in the Army.  Since his wish to
join the Army was not strictly for monetary reasons, he decided to honor
his commitment and fulfill his sense of duty.

5.  The applicant provides three letters, dated 20 August 2005, from the
Education Incentives Branch, U. S. Army Human Resources Command (USAHRC);
and his student loan paperwork.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the U. S. Army Reserve (DEP) on 29 June 2004.
 In addition to other incentives, he enlisted for the LRP not to exceed
$65,000.

2.  On 5 November 2004, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 5
years.  Section VI (Remarks) of his DD Form 1966/4 (Record of Military
Processing Armed Forces of the United States) stated in part, “ALL LOAN
REPAYMENT PROMISSARY (sic) NOTES REVIEWED BY MSG O___.  LAON (sic)
REPAYMENT PROGRAM INPROCESSING COUNSELING COMPLETED BY MSG O___ AT DEPOUT –
5 NOV 04- SCANNED INTO GCR OTHER CORE ADMIN SECTION.  ALL PROMISSARY (sic)
NOTES SCANNED INTO ONE AREA – PROMISSARY (sic) NOTES #1.  THERE ARE OTHER
PROMISSARY (sic) NOTES IN QUESTION THAT NEED TO BE REVIEWED AT
RECEPTION/FINANCE.  THE NOTES ACCEPTED BY MSG O___ ARE THE ONES SCANNED IN
TO GCR.  THE ACCEPTED NOTES WERE SENTOUT (sic) TO VIRGINIA IN THE REQUIRED
PACKET.”

3.  The applicant provided three letters, dated 10 August 2005, from the
Education Incentives Branch, USAHRC.  One letter informed him his Firstmark
Services (FS) loan in the amount of $3,068.88 did not qualify for repayment
under the LRP as it was a Self 2 Loan.  A second letter informed him his
Loan Remittance Center (LRC) loan in the amount of $3,928.31 did not
qualify for repayment under the LRP as it was a Private Loan.  A third
letter informed him his Sallie Mae Servicing Corporation (SMSC) loans in
the amounts totaling $27,056.63 did not qualify for repayment under the LRP
as they were Private Loans.

4.  On 5 February 2007, the Education Incentives Branch, USAHRC informed
the Board staff the applicant had two qualifying student loans in the
amounts of $13,750 and $2,440.98.

5.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative
Separations), paragraph 7-16 states a defective enlistment agreement exists
when the Soldier is eligible for enlistment in the Army but does not meet
the prerequisites for the options for which enlisted.  This situation
exists when, in part, a material misrepresentation by recruiting personnel,
upon which the Soldier reasonably relied, resulting in the Soldier being
induced to enlist for that option, occurs.  An unfulfilled enlistment
commitment exists when the Soldier receives a written enlistment commitment
from recruiting personnel for which the Soldier is qualified but which
cannot be fulfilled by the Army, through no fault of the Soldier.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  It appears a Government error was made when recruiting officials
informed the applicant that all of his student loans qualified for
repayment under the LRP.

2.  However, the error was caught before the applicant departed for basic
training.  There was a regulatory remedy for correcting that error (i.e.,
to request discharge for a defective enlistment agreement or unfulfilled
enlistment commitment).  The applicant acknowledges he was offered that
remedy.

3.  The Army appreciates the fact the applicant elected to remain in the
Army.  However, his doing so in effect waived the defective enlistment
agreement or unfulfilled enlistment commitment he made with his recruiter
regarding the LRP.  Therefore, regrettably, there is no basis for granting
the relief requested.

BOARD VOTE:

________ __mkp __________     GRANT FULL RELIEF

__     ____  ________  __    ___  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___lwr__  __    ___   __reb____    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                 |AR20070001311                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070315                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENIED                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Shatzer                             |
|ISSUES         1.       |128.10                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |



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