IN THE CASE OF:	   

		BOARD DATE:	  10 September 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130005249 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests entitlement to the student loan repayment program (SLRP).

2.  The applicant states, in effect:

	a.  The SLRP addendum that both she and the military entrance processing station (MEPS) counselor agreed to and signed was not included in her enlistment contract.  She had the original papers that show the benefit, along with statements from her recruiter that indicate an error occurred; however, there still is no resolution.

	b.  She enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) in a critical military occupational specialty (MOS) that was identified in the fiscal year 2006 (FY06) Selected Reserve Incentive Program with the sole intent of receiving the SLRP.  She, along with her recruiter, completed the addendum for her enlistment contract.  An investigation shows that her recruiter agrees that there must be an error.  

	c.  Each person who has reviewed her case says she does not have the SLRP in her contract and, therefore, the case is closed.  It was in her contract when she enlisted and can be verified by her recruiter and MEPS counselor.  Neither recruiter lied to her or made false promises.  They were the last to leave because she insisted upon the incentive even if it meant passing up on a bonus, which she did.  She recalls having to go in and re-sign some documents the next day because they had stayed past midnight and the dates did not match. Perhaps there was a glitch in the system or someone accidently substituted the original paperwork.  Whatever happened, she is fully aware that people and/or systems make mistakes.

	d.  Her entire chain of command has been fighting along with her for the past 3 years.  Her exception to policy (ETP) was approved up to the final reviewer, then denied.  Her recruiter has been investigated and openly admits there had to have been an error.  However, no one is willing to give her resolution and reinstate her SLRP benefits because no one wants to accept blame.  It is not her desire to place blame on anyone; she just wants the matter resolved.

3.  The applicant provides:

* her DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document - Armed Forces of the United States)
* a DA Form 5261 (SLRP Addendum)
* three letters
* six memoranda
* a Report of Investigation 
* three packets labeled Congressional Inquiry, dated 14 June 2010, 25 June 2012, and 14 September 2012, respectively
* a statement of support
* one page of Army Regulation 135-7 (Army National Guard and Army Reserve Incentive Programs)

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s records show she enlisted in the USAR on 11 September 2006 in the rank/grade of specialist (SPC)/E-4 for a period of 8 years.  

2.  The applicant provides her DD Form 4 and USAR Annex, each dated 11 September 2006, wherein it stated, in part, “I agree to serve 6 years in Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), 467th (Combat) Engineer Battalion, Millington, TN, and MOS 96B (Intelligence Analyst)” and “I am enlisting under the Standard Training Program.”  No other enlistment options are shown on the USAR Annex.

3.  She also provides a Statement of Understanding, dated 11 September 2011, wherein it stated she was eligible for the Selected Reserve Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB).

4.  Item 32a (Specific Option/Program Enlisted For) of the DD Form 1966 (Record of Military Processing – Armed Forces of the United States) contained in her records shows she enlisted for assignment to HHC, 467th Combat Engineer Battalion, Millington, TN, and MOS 96B.

5.  Item 33a (Certification of Recruiter or Acceptor) states "I certify that I have reviewed all information contained in this document and, to the best of my judgment and belief, the applicant fulfills all legal policy requirements for enlistment.  I accept him/her for enlistment on behalf of the USAR and certify that I have not made any promises or guarantees other than those listed in item 32a" (emphasis added).  The recruiter, Master Sergeant MSG AAH, and the applicant authenticated this form by placing their signatures in the appropriate blocks on 11 September 2006. 

6.  The applicant provides an SLRP Addendum that is not contained in her records.  This addendum shows she initialed the form in:

   a.  Section III (Acknowledgment) 1b (2) that contains the statement “I am contracting for initial active duty for training (IADT) and qualification in MOS 96B which Headquarters, Department of Army (HQDA) has approved for a maximum of $20,000 in loan repayments.   

	b.  Section V (Entitlement) that contains the statement "I understand that loan repayment under the SLRP will apply to me as follows: 3b “A maximum of $20,000 during my military career as I have acknowledged in Section III above, and that amount will not increase…Furthermore, I understand my eligibility for the $20,000 SLRP is based on MOS 96B…I will be subject to reduced benefits if I move to an MOS not eligible for this amount."

7.  This addendum shows the recruiter, Sergeant (SGT) MM, and the applicant authenticated this form by placing their signatures in the appropriate blocks on 11 September 2006. 

8.  The applicant’s records show she entered ADT on 25 September 2006.  She successfully completed advanced individual training and she was awarded MOS 96B.  She was honorably released from active duty on 26 April 2007 to the control of her USAR unit.  

9.  The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) she was issued for this period of service shows she completed 7 months and 2 days of creditable active service during this period of service.

10.  The applicant provides an ETP request, dated 2 December 2009, she submitted to her immediate commander for payment of the SLRP benefit wherein she stated that before enlisting in September 2006 she was told 96B was a critical MOS that would come with the MGIB, SLRP, and an enlistment bonus.  When she arrived at the MEPS to sign her contract, she was told that her recruiter had double-slotted for the position in order for her to get the MOS and that she would lose out on the bonus.  She enlisted anyway with the understanding that she would still be awarded the MGIB and SLRP.  

11.  Her immediate commander recommended approval of her request on 10 January 2010; her intermediate and senior commanders recommended approval on 8 February 2010 and 10 March 2010, respectively.  

12.  On 26 April 2010, the approving authority, HQ, USAR Command, Fort McPherson, GA, disapproved her ETP request and stated the applicant enlisted on 11 September 2006 for 6 years for the MGIB.  Research determined the SLRP was not listed as an incentive in her enlistment contract.  The U.S. Army Recruiting Command (USAREC) had been notified of the denial and would investigate the matter as they deem appropriate.

13.  The applicant provides a memorandum to her Congressman, dated 1 June 2010, issued by HQ, USAREC, wherein a USAREC official stated:

   a.  The applicant’s USAR unit previously submitted a request for the applicant to receive the SLRP incentive and it was denied by the approving authority based on the fact that she was not awarded the SLRP within her initial enlistment contract.  Safeguards are built into the enlistment process to ensure individuals are fully aware of what is being guaranteed to them when they sign the enlistment contract.
   
   b.  USAREC initiated an investigation into her allegation of false promises by her recruiter and if the allegations are substantiated, appropriate action will be initiated.  The results of the investigation will have no bearing on her eligibility to receive the SLRP.

14.  The applicant provides a redacted USAREC, Record of Investigation, dated 9 July 2010, wherein it stated she enlisted in 2006 and believed she had the SLRP as an option.  She told the investigating officer that her recruiter, Staff Sergeant (SSG) MM, did not promise her the SLRP or any other incentive.  SSG MM was not interviewed as he had already left the Army.  She simply claims she enlisted in 2006 "with the understanding" she would be entitled to the SLRP.  Furthermore, she completed the SLRP contract addendum at the MEPS the day she enlisted.  Her enlistment file shows her only incentive was the MGIB and there is no copy of the SLRP addendum in her records.  There is no evidence to substantiate that she was falsely promised the SLRP incentive.

15.  The applicant provides a memorandum to her Congressman, dated 20 July 2012, issued by HQ, USAR Command, Fort Bragg, NC, wherein a USAR Command official stated in accordance with Army regulatory guidance, the SLRP incentive is offered to qualifying Army Reserve Soldiers upon signing a contractual agreement in the Selected Reserve and executing a DA Form 5261.  She enlisted in the USAR on 11 September 2006; however, she did not sign a SLRP Addendum entitling her to the incentive.  In December 2009, she submitted an ETP request to this HQ and it was denied.  In addition, USAREC launched an investigation and she was still found to be ineligible for the SLRP.

16.  The applicant provides a memorandum to her Congressman, dated 31 August 2012, issued by the Office of the Chief of Legislative Liaison, wherein the Congressional Actions Manager stated officials within the USAR advised that when the applicant enlisted in the USAR on 11 September 2006 she did not sign a SLRP Addendum entitling her to the incentive.  A review of her personnel file showed that the DA Form 5261 she enclosed was invalid and was not included in her original contract.  The response of 20 July 2012 remained the same.

17.  The applicant provides a statement of support, dated 10 August 2012, wherein SSG MM stated:

	a.  He was the applicant’s recruiter when she enlisted in September 2006.  He remembers her enlistment day specifically because it was annual mission day and they had to go through a lot and had many applicants at the MEPS.  It was the day to make their annual mission [quota] and it was a late night for everyone. He knows that the applicant had to return to the MEPS the following day to finish her enlistment contract because something was not correct (signatures or dates or something).  

   b.  At the time of her enlistment, every Reserve enlistment came with the maximum incentive package - the MGIB with a $350 kicker, $20,000 SLRP, and a $20,000 bonus.  He put many Soldiers in during that time and he doesn’t recall any of them not receiving the incentives.  He was sure the MEPS and USAREC can attest to that time of maximum Reserve incentives for all prior service/new Soldiers.  After speaking with the applicant and [being told] she didn’t receive any of these incentives, he is confident her enlistment incentives were accidently changed the following day, or somehow dropped off the system.  That could have been a mistake on someone’s data entry, or a system error which would be typical in the field at the time.

18.  In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was received on 14 June 2013 from the Chief, Personnel Management Division, HQ, USAR Command.  The advisory official recommended disapproval of the applicant's request for entitlement to the SLRP.  The advisory official stated a review of the applicant’s personnel packet determined the SLRP Addendum she provided was not part of her original contract and was not valid.  In addition, a review of her reservation in the Recruit Quota System (REQUEST) validated that no incentives were offered.

19.  On 17 June 2013, the applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion for information and to allow her the opportunity to submit comments or a rebuttal; however, she did not respond.

20.  The SLRP provides for the repayment by the Government of a designated portion of any outstanding student loan(s) secured after 1 October 1975.  The loan amount to be repaid is 15% 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.  To be eligible for the SLRP incentive, a person must contractually obligate himself or herself to serve satisfactorily, must serve in a Reserve unit for a full term of the contractual agreement, and must further obligate himself or herself to continue to serve in the same component and the same MOS unless excused for the convenience of the Government.  Each completed satisfactory year of service performed under this SLRP agreement establishes an anniversary date.  Any qualifying loan which is at least one year old may then be paid in accordance with the terms of this educational enlistment incentive.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends she is entitled to the SLRP incentive in the amount of $20,000.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant enlisted in the USAR on 11 September 2006 for a period of 6 years for a specific unit, MOS 96B, and the MGIB.  However, her records are void of an SLRP Addendum that shows she enlisted for the SLRP incentive.

3.  Notwithstanding her and her recruiter’s sincerity that she was enlisting for the SLRP incentive, the evidence of record does not show the SLRP Addendum that she provided was ever submitted or included in her enlistment contract.  In addition, her reservation in the REQUEST system confirms no incentives were offered in conjunction with her enlistment in the USAR.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis upon which to grant the requested relief.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____x___  ___x____  ____x____  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.



      _______ _   _x______   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130005249



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130005249



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1