BOARD DATE:	  22 October 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130007124 


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, in effect, correction of her records to show she was authorized the Student Loan Repayment Program (SLRP) enlistment option.

2.  The applicant states:

* she has been wanting to get the SLRP since 2003 and she originally applied for the SLRP in 2009 when she reenlisted
* she was promised the SLRP option and her recruiter told her the Advanced Individual Training unit had the information, but she was not given the SLRP option or a bonus addendum
* her retention noncommissioned officer erroneously had her enlisted for 3 years instead of 6 years in order to qualify for the SLRP
* attempts were made to correct her expiration of term of service (ETS)
* a [bonus] control number (BCN) was issued, but there was no bonus addendum
* she has been wanting to file an Inspector General (IG) complaint, but her chain of command prevents her from doing so and tries to solve the issue at the lowest level; however, the issue remains

3.  The applicant provides:

* a DA Form 4836 (Oath of Extension of Enlistment or Reenlistment)
* 2 DD Forms 2475 (Department of Defense Educational Loan Repayment Program (LRP) Annual Application)

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  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 also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant's DD Form 1966 (Record of Military Processing – Armed Forces of the United States) and DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document – Armed Forces of the United States) created at the time of her enlistment are unavailable.

3.  The available records show the applicant enlisted in the Hawaii Army National Guard (HIARNG) on 14 July 2003.  She completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty 55B (Ammunition Specialist).

4.  On 20 April 2006, she transferred to the California Army National Guard (CAARNG).

5.  Her Personnel Qualification Record shows a "41" score on her Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT).

6.  The applicant provides copies of her DA Form 4836 which show she extended her 2003 enlistment for a 3-year period.  She also provides two copies of her DD Form 2475 which show the control number "509070005CA" was assigned to her loan payment request.

7.  Records show the applicant executed an SLRP addendum on 8 January 2010.

8.  On 11 June 2013, the Chief, Personnel, Programs, Resources and Manpower Division, National Guard Bureau provided an advisory opinion.  The advisory official stated:

	a.  The applicant was not eligible for the SLRP at the time of her enlistment because her AFQT score of "41" was below the minimum AFQT score of "50" required by Army Regulation 135-7 (Army National Guard and Army Reserve Inventive Programs) and the Selected Reenlistment Incentive Program (SRIP) guidance to qualify for the Non-Prior Service (NPS) SLRP incentive.

	b.  On 13 July 2009, the applicant reached her ETS date and was discharged from the CAARNG.  She was assigned to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) to fulfill her remaining Military Service Obligation (MSO) of 2 years.  However, on 27 July 2009, her discharge into the USAR was revoked and she was released from the USAR back into the CAARNG with the effective date of 14 July 2009, 1 day after her original ETS date.  Upon her release from the USAR, a new ETS date was created in her reassignment order for 13 July 2011.

	c.  The applicant extended her enlistment on 7 August 2009 for 3 years.  Per her statement, her intent for this extension was to qualify for the SLRP incentive, but she did not extend for the proper term to receive the SLRP.  She did not sign an SLRP addendum and no BCN was requested.  In addition, her DA Form 4836 erroneously listed her original ETS date of 13 July 2009 and was executed on 
7 August 2009, after the original ETS.  A review of her records did not uncover any DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action) correcting the administrative oversight.

	d.  The CAARNG extended the applicant again on 8 January 2010 for 6 years with the original ETS of 13 July 2009 and did not account for the previous 3-year extension completed 5 months earlier.  No DA Form 4187 was executed correcting the error of the second extension, which also occurred after her ETS. When the applicant extended a second time, she signed an SLRP addendum and a BCN was requested the day of her extension.  The applicant extended for a correct term of service of 6 years, but her contract verifies an expired ETS date.  Her second extension gave her a new extension date of 17 July 2015, but this term was calculated off the original expired ETS date when it should have been calculated off her new ETS date from the first extension executed on 7 August 2009 with a new ETS of 13 July 2020.

	e.  On 21 December 2011, the applicant again extended.  This time, her DA Form 4836 showed an ETS date of 13 July 2012, validating her first 3-year extension.  Her third extension was for a 1-year term which created a new ETS date of 13 July 2013.  The applicant extended the fourth time on 2 June 2013, for a 6-year term which created a new ETS date of 13 July 2019.  She is currently holding that ETS date in her record.

9.  The advisory official recommends the ABCMR direct the CAARNG to correct the applicant's records as follows: 

* revoke her extension executed on 7 August 2009
* enforce the extension executed on 8 January 2010 with a DA Form 4187 correcting the date of execution to 7 August 2009
* adjusting her ETS to 13 July 2015
* an administrative correction to her subsequent SLRP addendum also needs to be performed with a signature date of 7 August 2009
* enforce extensions executed on 21 December 2012 for the 1-year term
* the subsequent fourth extension executed on 2 June 2012 requires a DA Form 4187 correcting the term from 6 years to 3 years which will validate the current ETS date of 13 July 2019 

10.  Furthermore, the CAARNG Incentive Task Force was advised by the National Guard Bureau that the applicant's Retirement Point Accounting System (RPAS) statement requires correction to her break in service that she is currently showing due to her discharge into the USAR and subsequent return to the CAARNG 1 day after her original ETS.

11.  On 18 July 2013, the Chief, Personnel Policy Division, National Guard Bureau, provided an advisory opinion.  This official stated:

   a.  The applicant claims that she applied for the SLRP in 2009; however, a bonus addendum was never signed. 

   b.  According to the Incentive Task Force Manager for the CAARNG, the applicant had an assigned BCN for a 3-year bonus in the amount of $20,000.  However, this bonus was never paid.  In May 2012, her bonus changed to the SLRP, but the State never received the necessary documentation to be placed into the National Student Loan Data System from the Soldier; therefore, a bonus was never received.  The Soldier's ETS was July 2013, and she would have to remain in an active status through 2015 instead of 2013 to be in compliance for the bonus.

   c.  Neither the HIARNG nor the CAARNG could verify whether the SLRP incentive was offered to her at the time of enlistment.  However, she was not eligible for the SLRP at that time because her AFQT Score of "41" was below the minimum AFQT score of "50," which is required by Army Regulation 135-7 and the SRIP guidance to qualify for the NPS SLRP incentive.

   d.  This official recommended the same corrections as the Chief, Personnel Programs, Resources and Manpower Division, National Guard Bureau. 

   e.  The CAARNG concurred with the recommendations.
12.  On 22 and 24 July 2013, copies of the advisory opinions were provided to the applicant for review and response.  She did not respond within the timeframe allowed.

13.  Army Regulation 135-7 prescribes policies and procedures for the administration of the ARNG and the USAR incentive programs.  Chapter 5 authorizes student loan repayment for qualified Selected Reserve enlisted personnel.  This incentive is offered to qualifying non-prior, prior, and in-service personnel upon signing a contractual agreement for a specified term of service in the Selected Reserve and executing an SLRP addendum.  Basic eligibility states non-prior service personnel require an AFQT score of 50 and other criteria.  Prior service personnel must reenlist or extend for 3 or more years for service in the Selected Reserve.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for correction of her records to show she was authorized the SLRP enlistment option was carefully considered.

2.  Although the applicant may have initially enlisted for the SLRP option, she did not have the required "50" AFQT score for the entitlement at the time.  However, she was eligible for the SLRP enlistment option when she extended her enlistment on 8 January 2010.  Therefore, her records should be corrected to show she was entitled to the SLRP option at the time of this enlistment.

3.  Further, the equitable administrative corrections recommended by the advisory officials are necessary to validate her current ETS, her entitlement to the SLRP, and correct administrative errors created in her records during attempts to make her eligible for the SLRP entitlement.

4.  In view of the foregoing, her records should be corrected as indicated below.

BOARD VOTE:

___X_  ___X_____  ___X_____  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined the evidence presented is 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:

	a.  revoking her extension executed on 7 August 2009;

	b.  amending her 8 January 2010 extension to show it was executed on 7 August 2009 and adjusting her ETS to 17 July 2015;

	c.  amending her SLRP addendum executed on 8 January 2010 to show it was executed on 7 August 2009;

	d.  amending her extension executed on 2 June 2012 to show it was for a 
3-year period, making her ETS 13 July 2019;

	e.  amending her RPAS statement to show no break in service; and

   f.  paying her student loans in accordance with her corrected contract. 



      _______ _   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)                                         AR20130007124



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130007124



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1