AR20160006334

IN THE CASE OF:

BOARD DATE: 24 May 2016

DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160006334

BOARD VOTE:

____X___ ____X___ ____X___ GRANT FULL RELIEF

________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION

2Enclosures
1. Board Determination/Recommendation
2. Evidence and Consideration

IN THE CASE OF:

BOARD DATE: 24 May 2016

DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160006334

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all State Army National Guard and Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

a. showing the DD Form 1966 and NGB Form 600-7-5-R-E were completed on 17 February 2012, the date of his enlistment and, in accordance with Selected Reserve Incentive Program policy, making him eligible for the $50,000 Student Loan Repayment Program incentive and paying that in accordance with his Student Loan Repayment Program Addendum.

b. In the alternative or in addition to the above action, show that an exception to policy request was approved allowing the applicant to retain full participation in the SLRP in accordance with the terms set forth in AnnexL to his DD Form 4.

____________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.

IN THE CASE OF:

BOARD DATE: 24 May 2016

DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160006334

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 his record to show he is eligible for the Student Loan Repayment Program (SLRP).

2. The applicant states:

a. The dates of his DD Form 1966 (Record of Military Processing – Armed Forces of the United States) and all SLRP addendums should be modified to show the same date as that shown on his DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document-Armed Forces of the United States).

b. He enlisted in the Massachusetts Army National Guard (MAARNG) on
17 February 2012 with an understanding that he was entitled to a $50,000 SLRP incentive in accordance with the addendums in his contract that he personally hand-signed on that day.

c. In December 2013, several months after he submitted the necessary
forms to process his first student loan payments, upon his first anniversary of enlistment in the MAARNG, he received a memorandum stating that he would need to submit an exception to policy (ETP) request since a discrepancy was found within his enlistment documents that prevented the processing of his first annual payment.

d. The memorandum he received regarding this discrepancy stated that he
had two SLRP addendums in the interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS) and both were dated differently than his
DD Form 4. His SLRP addendums are dated 5 March 2012 and
21 February 2012.

e. His DD Form 4 is dated 17 February 2012. The explanation for the date discrepancy is as follows:

(1) On 16 February 2012, he was slated to enlist at the Boston Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS). The online network used to complete and digitally sign the enlistment documents became unavailable and recruits were advised to return the following morning to continue entrance processing.

(2) On the morning of 17 February 2012, the network was still not functioning and it was decided that the ARNG liaison office staff would furnish hard copies of generic enlistment contracts. The directive was that each page of the contract would be signed and dated by hand so recruits could complete their enlistment process and leave MEPS that day with a hard copy contract. His DDForm 4 was completed and dated on 17 February 2012.

(3) Administratively, his official contract was signed digitally on 21February 2012 and later signed again on his ship date to basic combat training on 5 March 2012.

(4) He requested an ETP from the ARNG and approximately 2 years later on 4 December 2015, he received a memorandum from the National Guard Bureau (NGB) stating his ETP was disapproved.

(5) More than 3 years have passed since his enlistment and he has worked hard to pay off his federal student loans that the ARNG promised to assist him with in return for his service. He believes, if approved, he should be entitled to retroactive SLRP payments.

f. The memorandum further stated that a review of his DD Form 4 does not support that he was offered the 09S SLRP incentive.

3. The applicant provides a copy of his ETP denial letter, a memorandum for record (unsigned and incomplete), dated 10 January 2015; a notification of incentive discrepancy and ETP process letter, dated 18 December 2014 (however, it does not belong to the applicant); and an incomplete letter regarding company administration that does not belong to the applicant.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1. Title10, U.S.Code, section1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3years 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. His DD Form 4, dated 17 February 2012, shows he enlisted in the MAARNG in pay grade E-4 for a period of 8 years. This form does not list any annexes/addenda that were associated with his DD Form 4.

3. His Enlistment/Reenlistment Agreement, ARNG, Service Requirements and Methods of Fulfillment, dated 17 February 2012, shows he enlisted under the 09S program as a Commissioned Officer Candidate.

4. His DD Form 1966, dated 5 March 2012, shows he enlisted in the ARNG of the United States on 17 February 2012. Item 32 (Specific Option/Program Enlisted For, Military Skill, or Assignment to a Geographical Area Guarantees) shows he enlisted for the 09S (State Officer Candidate) Enlistment Option and Loan Repayment Program up to $50,000. It further shows he enlisted for the 6×2 option (6 years in the Selected Reserve and 2 years in the Individual Ready Reserve).

5. An NGB Form 600-7-5-R-E (Annex L to DD Form 4 – Enlisted Loan Repayment Program Addendum ARNG of the U.S.), dated 5 March 2012, indicates in paragraph 1 that he was a non-prior service applicant enlisting under the 09S option for a service obligation of either 6×2 or 8×0 for an SLRP incentive of up to the amount of $50,000.00. He signed the addendum on 5March 2012. The Service Representative, Mr. J___ F. O___, signed the addendum on 5 March 2012 and assigned an SLRP Control Number of 8609105.

6. MEPS Orders 2065005, dated 22 February 2012, show he was ordered to report to Fort Sill, OK, on 5 March 2012 for initial active duty for the purpose of completing basic training.

7. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he entered active duty for training on 5 March 2012 and he was released from active duty for training on 19 May 2012 due to completion of required active service.

8. The applicant requested an ETP to retain the SLRP incentive. He stated that he had two SLRP addendums in IPERMS and both were dated subsequent to his DD Form 4 which violates the ARNG Selected Reserve Incentives Program (SRIP) 11-01.

9. On 4 December 2015, the NGB denied the applicant an ETP since he did not contract for the incentive at the time of enlistment, and the SLRP Control Number was requested before/after the date of enlistment which also violates ARNG SRIP 11-01. The applicants DD Form 1966 and SLRP addenda on record were signed after his enlistment into the MAARNG which indicated a retroactive offering of the incentive.

REFERENCES:

1. An NGB Memorandum, dated 25 July 2011, subject: ARNG SRIP for Fiscal Year 2011, provides policy to those entering or serving in a traditional status in the ARNG effective 1 August 2011.

2. Paragraph 17 provides the eligibility criteria for the SLRP incentive. It states, in pertinent part:

* the date Soldiers sign their initial enlistment or extension agreement establishes the SLRP anniversary date (month), unless adjusted for periods of authorized non-availability
* applicants enlisting under the 09S SLRP option must contract for a minimum 6-year service obligation and meet the minimum 09S SLRP criteria as outlined in Army Regulation 601-210 (Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program) and policy memoranda
* additional loans may not be added during the period of the contractual service commitment
* 09S SLRP applicants are not authorized any enlisted SRIP incentive other than the SLRP

3. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552, the law which governs the operation of 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 anothers service in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps or Coast Guard, as the case may be.

DISCUSSION:

1. The fact that his enlistment contract, the DD Form 1966, and the SLRP addendum were not signed on the same date was not due to the fault of the applicant. Neither error nor confusion would have been the fault of the applicant.

2. The error committed in processing his enlistment was not his and he should not be penalized due to the errors committed by a system failure. He continues to fulfill his contractual obligations, and he is entitled to full relief.

3. In light of the available evidence, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s record to show an ETP was granted allowing him to retain his $50,000 SLRP incentive.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953

Enclosure 1

ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160006334

2

ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Enclosure 1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160006334

5

ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Enclosure 2