IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  22 October 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140004525 


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 a reversal of the decision to deny him an exception to policy (ETP) to retain the $20,000 Student Loan Repayment Program (SLRP) incentive for his Massachusetts Army National Guard (MAARNG) service. 

2.  The applicant states: 

	a.  He reenlisted in the ARNG for 6 years while in Iraq in 2006.  As part of his reenlistment, he was offered the SLRP incentive for up to $20,000.  They paid $15,000 of his student loans off thus far; however, now it has taken them about 2.5 years to process his final payment of $3,000 which he may now not be eligible to receive.  Instead of processing that payment, he had to write an exception to policy (ETP) memorandum because the dates on the enlistment contract (DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document)) and the National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 600-7-5-R-E (Annex S - SLRP Addendum - ARNG) didn't match up.  In turn, the NGB has denied his ETP request and he is being told that he needs to pay back the $15,000 that has already been paid directly toward his student loans.   

	b.  While serving with the MAARNG during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2006, he decided to reenlist for an additional 6 years because he was serving under "stop loss" at the time.  Stop Loss, in effect, is when a service member’s contract is involuntarily extended beyond their initial expiration term of service date.  During the earlier years of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military would involuntarily extend contracts of service members who were being mobilized to deploy before their service contracts would expire.  For example, if you had two months left in your service contract and your unit received mobilization orders to Iraq or Afghanistan, the military would involuntarily extend your contract so that you could serve out that entire tour.  In addition, if you were in Iraq or Afghanistan when that contract expired, the military would automatically extend you until you returned home. 

	c.  Reenlisting was not an easy decision given the current nature of the war and how it affected his parents and family back home.  That decision also brought up the possibility of eventually going back to Iraq or Afghanistan in the future, which he did in 2010.  However, going against his family's wishes, he decided to reenlist for 6 years because of his love for this country and the U.S. Army.  In addition, the MAARNG offered two bonus incentives that added to his decision:  a $15,000 tax free reenlistment bonus and up to $20,000 in student loan relief through the Department of Defense SLRP.  He received the $15,000 tax free reenlistment bonus within a few months while he was still in Iraq.  However, the SLRP incentive worked differently; those payments would be stretched out and paid throughout the next 6 years of his new service contract.  However, before his unit could finalize and mail the SLRP addendum part of his contract back to the United States, he had to provide proof of his student loans via promissory notes.  In turn, he had to have his parents find those promissory notes and mail them to Iraq.  It took approximately 2 months to complete this process from the time he signed his enlistment contract on 13 April 2006.  Once he received the promissory notes, which were required to complete the SLRP addendum, he immediately handed them over to his unit who then verified and finished that part of his contract.  Everything was dated and mailed back to the Incentives Office at the MAARNG Joint Force Headquarters (JFHQ).  Several years after he returned home, he started applying and using this SLRP benefit.  It took him a few years to actually apply, but when he did, he received up to $15,000.

	d.  This is an injustice to his service to this country.  He was serving in Iraq when he was promised this benefit.  They didn't have scanners or many of the capabilities that they have today in these wars.  Before his unit could process the SLRP Addendum part of the contract (Annex S to DD Form 4), his unit needed to see his promissory notes (loan statements) in order to sign and finalize it.  Section VI, Number 3 of the Addendum states he would furnish his unit personnel all of his promissory notes upon reenlistment/extension for forwarding to the Incentive Manager of his State.  A payment would not be authorized if he did not submit his promissory notes or letter of disbursement at the time he immediately reenlisted/extended.  Loans acquired after his reenlistment/extension are not eligible for repayment under this program.

	e.  The place of enlistment on the DD Form 4 contract does say that he was in Forward Operating Base (FOB) Abu Ghraib, Iraq.  After receiving his promissory notes from his parents, he immediately handed them over to his unit for processing.  Once he handed them over, he signed and dated the addendum.  After he signed it and turned everything over to his unit, his commander signed the addendum and it was mailed back to Massachusetts.  Now, the issue that he is having is that the SLRP addendum was signed on a different date than the reenlistment contract.  However, it is pretty obvious why; but there just happens to be some confusion amongst the personnel who handled this incentive.  

	f.  The memorandum that he received from the NGB lists numerous reasons why his ETP was denied, with the main reason resting on the fact that the date on his SLRP addendum doesn’t match the date on his enlistment contract.  If one reads the addendum and the contract, it's pretty obvious why the dates were different - he was in Iraq.  Also, being in a combat zone made the requirements a little more difficult to accomplish, especially in 2006.  The NGB memorandum also states he is not currently serving under the "military occupational specialty (MOS)" that he had when he originally signed up for the SLRP.  This is because he was recently command-directed to deploy with a unit to Afghanistan under his secondary MOS 12N (Horizontal Construction Engineer).  When a Soldier is command-directed to a deploying unit, the Soldier is immediately involuntarily transferred to that unit.  Section 4 of the NGB memorandum states the "[Applicant] is not serving in his contracted MOS (92A (Automated Logistics Specialist)) due to being promoted in the MAARNG on 10 June 2013."  However, this has nothing to do with this incentive.  His contract was from 13 April 2006 to 13 April 2012; therefore, the "MOS" notation is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand.  His last payment should have been submitted shortly after 13 April 2012, when he was in fact still serving in MOS 92A (if that really matters).  

	g.  At the time the Deputy G-1, ARNG wrote and signed this memorandum denying his request for an ETP, 2 years had passed since his last SLRP payment was due (2012-04-13).  After reading the denial letter, he found out that he may not be entitled to that last SLRP payment.  However, he is still entitled to the money that he has received thus far towards his loans from this program. Lastly, if there is any error in here whatsoever, perhaps it is the last SLRP payment of $3,000 because it will put him over the amount of the student loans that he had accumulated before he reenlisted under this program.  If that is the case, then he should only be asked to pay back an overpayment of $942.99 since he only had $14,057.01 in loans which qualified for relief under this program ($15,000.00 minus $14,057.01= $942.99). 


	h.  He asks the Board to reverse the decision which has been made on his request for an exception to policy.  This is a complete injustice.  Not only did he serve his country those next 6 years honorably; he ended up going back overseas to Afghanistan in the process.  When he reenlisted, he did so under the conditions outlined in his contract with one of them being the $20,000 incentive through the SLRP which was going to go directly to his student loans.  He has seen too many veterans promised this benefit; however, it is a nightmare to use due to the incompetence of the personnel running the program. 

3.  The applicant provides:

* DD Form 4, dated 13 April 2006
* Annex S, dated 14 June 2006
* Annex R, dated 24 May 2006
* NGB denial of ETP memorandum

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's records show he enlisted in the MAARNG on 14 December 1999.  He entered active duty for training (ADT) on 28 May 2001 and completed training requirements for award of MOS 92A.  He was released from ADT on 28 August 2001. 

2.  On 18 June 2003, Headquarters, 181st Engineer Battalion, MAARNG published Orders 169-05 awarding him primary MOS (PMOS) 12B (Combat Engineer) and secondary MOS 92A, effective 1 July 2003. 

3.  On 1 September 2004, MOS 12B was converted to MOS 21B.  On 16 June 2005, JFHQ, MAARNG published Orders 167-27 awarding him PMOS 92A and secondary MOS 21B, effective 15 June 2005.  

4.  On 23 June 2005, the MAARNG published Orders 174-350 ordering him to active duty in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.  The orders listed his PMOS as 92A and his unit as Company B, 181st Engineer Battalion. 

5.  On 5 August 2005, he entered active duty and subsequently served in Iraq from 27 October 2005 to 17 October 2006.  He was assigned to Company B, 181st Engineer Battalion.

6.  While at the FOB Abu Ghraib, Iraq, on 13 April 2006, he executed a 6-year reenlistment in the ARNG.  His DD Form 4 did not list any incentives.  However, he signed an Annex R (Bonus) on 24 May 2006 and Annex S (SLRP) incentive on 14 June 2006. 
7.  Annex S, dated 14 June 2006, was signed by the applicant and an enlisting official.  It was not assigned an SLRP Control Number nor was it audited or verified by the State Incentive Manager for accuracy.  It explained his military obligations, methods of fulfilling that obligation, and the participation requirements.  This form shows:

* he indicated he was a prior service applicant and he agreed to reenlist for 6 years
* he held a PMOS for the position in which he was immediately reenlisting and he was reenlisting for a valid position within unit identification code WPCWB2 (Company B, 181st Engineer Battalion)
* he indicated he had 2 loans in the amount of $14,057.01 and the total amount of repayment of the qualifying loans would not exceed $20,000
* he would furnish his unit personnel with all promissory notes upon his reenlistment for forwarding to the State Incentive Manager
* a payment would not be made if he did not submit his promissory notes or letter of disbursement at the time he immediately reenlisted
* loans acquired after reenlistment are not eligible for repayment under this program 

8.  Following his release from active duty to the control of his State ARNG, on 20 November 2006, he was reassigned to the Engineer Company, 26th Brigade Special Troop Battalion, Florence, MA, effective 1 December 2006.  

9.  On 19 April 2007, he was awarded PMOS 21B1O and SMOS 92A1O.  He was assigned to the Engineer Company, 26th Brigade Special Troop Battalion.

10.  On 25 September 2007, he was reassigned to A Company, 126th Combat Support (CS) Battalion, also referred to as Brigade Support Battalion (BSB), Chicopee, MA. 

11.  On 28 September 2007, he was promoted to sergeant/E-5 and awarded PMOS 92A2O and SMOS 21B2O.  He was assigned to A Company, 126th BSB. 

12.  On 1 October 2009, he was promoted to staff sergeant/E-6 and awarded PMOS 92A3O and SMOS 21B3O.  He was assigned to A Company, 126th BSB. 

13.  On 16 December 2009, the Commander, 379th Engineer Company, submitted through the chain of command (101st Engineer Battalion, 26th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade) to the JFHQ, MAARNG a request to waive MOS qualification for the applicant.  He stated the applicant is qualified in MOS 21B; but he can perform the duties of MOS 21E (Construction Equipment Operator) which qualifies him as a member of the 369th Engineer Company (Horizontal) deploying unit.  It is noted that MOS 21E was converted to MOS 12N on 1 October 2010. 

14.  The Commander, Land Component, JFHQ, MAARNG concurred with the recommendation from the Commander, 379th Engineer Company (Horizontal). 

15.  On 25 January 2010, he was released from A Company, 126th CS Battalion and reassigned to Detachment 1, 379th Engineer Battalion, Pittsfield, MA. 

16.  On 6 February 2010, he was ordered to active duty in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, effective 21 February 2010.  These orders listed his mobilization MOS as 92A. 

17.  He entered active duty on 18 February 2010 and served in Afghanistan in MOS 12N from 11 April 2010 to 10 February 2011.  He was honorably released from active duty on 29 April 2011.  MOS 21E had converted to MOS 12N on 1 October 2010. 

18.  Following his release from active duty to the control of his State ARNG, he was promoted to sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7 (PMOS 92A4O and SMOS 21B4O) on 10 June 2013. 

19.  He executed a 1-year extension in the ARNG on 21 February 2012 and a
2-year extension on 13 February 2013.  

20.  On 19 February 2014, the NGB denied his ETP to retain the $20,000 due to various discrepancies.  The NGB also instructed the State Incentive Manager to terminate the incentive effective the start date of the contract and recoupment of all monies paid.  The NGB stated the applicant: 

* received payment above the amount authorized for the incentive which violates ARNG Selected Reserve Incentive Program (SRIP) 06-05
* did not contract for the incentive at the time of reenlistment and is not eligible for retroactive entitlement which violates ARNG SRIP 06-05
* was paid for unauthorized loans which violates ARNG SRIP 06-05
* incentive addendum contains different signature dates from the Soldier and Service Representative which violates ARNG SRIP 06-05

   a.  The applicant enlisted/accessed in the MAARNG, Unit Identification Code (UIC) WP9RAO on 14 June 2006.  His contracted loan addendum/agreement amount was $20,000 and his contracted MOS was 92A.  His current MOS is 00F (MOS immaterial).  He is not serving in his contracted MOS 92A due to being promoted to SFC in the MAARNG on 10 June 2013.  This promotion was after what would have been his final payment.

	b.  He executed the DD Form 4 for an immediate reenlistment on 13 April 2006 and did not indicate an incentive was being offered at that time.  In addition, he completed the addendum approximately 2 months after the reenlistment date and the bonus control number was requested approximately 2 years later; therefore, remaining consistent with the rules for investigating ETP requests, the SLRP cannot be granted. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant executed a 6-year reenlistment in the ARNG on 13 April 2006 while in Iraq.  His DD Form 4 did not list any incentives; however, he signed Annex R (Bonus) on 24 May 2006 and Annex S (SLRP) on 14 June 2006. 

2.  Annex S, the annex that promised him the SLRP incentive, was signed
2 months after he executed the reenlistment.  Although it was signed by him and an enlisting official, it was not assigned an SLRP Control Number nor was it audited or verified by the State Incentive Manager for accuracy.  Additionally, on this Annex, he indicated he had two loans in the amount of $14,057.01 and the total amount of repayment of the qualifying loans would not exceed $20,000.

3.  A set of administrative errors and operating circumstances led to the loss of the applicant's SLRP incentive, denial of his ETP request, and an order to the State Incentive Manager to recoup monies paid.  This is unjust.  

	a.  The applicant reenlisted in good faith and fulfilled the requirements of his reenlistment (April 2006 through April 2012).  

	b.  The applicant was deployed to Iraq at the time of his reenlistment.  It is unreasonable to expect him to carry his loan documents in a combat environment.  He made a real effort to obtain the loan documents and sign the addendum, albeit 2 months later.  If anything, the retention officials should have held off his reenlistment until those documents were received.

	c.  The applicant was neither a career counselor nor a retention noncommissioned officer.  It was incumbent on his commander and retention personnel to properly counsel and advise him of the requirements associated with his incentive.  

	d.  Although he later deployed to Afghanistan and performed in MOS 12N, he did so only after his chain of command, including the Commander, Land Forces, JFHQ, certified his MOS qualification in MOS 12N.  However, he never lost the PMOS of 92A or the SMOS of 12B.  

	e.  It is very unreasonable to expect a Soldier to deploy then withhold an incentive that he has earned.  

4.  Although it is unclear how much has been paid toward his loans, it is clear that at the time he reenlisted he disclosed two loans in the amount of $14,057.01. As such, he may not be entitled to the full $20,000 SLRP incentive, but he is certainly entitled to the amount he disclosed.  The SLRP contract addendum shows loans in the amount of $14,057.01.  Terminating this incentive with recoupment will not only render him ineligible for payments but also incur a debt for the monies that have already been paid toward his loans.  This is an injustice.

5.  Therefore, his records should be corrected to stop any recoupment of the SLRP incentive up to $14,057.01.  

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

____X____  ____X____  ___X_____  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 partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all State ARNG and Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

* amending Annex S to the DD Form 4 to show it was executed, witnessed, and assigned a Bonus Control Number on 13 April 2006, the same date he reenlisted in the ARNG
* showing he provided the State Incentive Manager a copy of all promissory notes and proof of disbursement (for the amount of $14,057.01) upon his reenlistment
* stopping any recoupment of his SLRP incentive
* paying out of ARNG funds all of his authorized loans in accordance with his contract subject to the threshold amount listed on his contract 
2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to repayment of the full SLRP incentive in the amount of $20,000. 



      _______ _   __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)                                         AR20140004525



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140004525



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1