Consumer complaint received 2016-10-14 00:00:00
Product: Student loan — Non-federal student loan
Issue: Can't repay my loan — Can't decrease my monthly payments
Company: ALASKA COMMISSION ON POST SECONDARY EDUCATION
State: NC

Complaint narrative:
Dear XXXX, I am a current borrower from the Alaska XXXX XXXX XXXX, a public corporation that issues bonds for non-federal education loans. I carry close {$71000.00} on XXXX loans dispersed by the XXXX from XXXX to XXXX. The fixed interest rates on my loans are extremely high, averaging 8.5 %. I pay {$820.00} a month to the State of Alaska, and approximately {$500.00} a month last year ( 60 % of each payment ) went towards the interest. 

Loans by the XXXX are managed and serviced by a sister agency within the Alaska Dept. of Education, the Alaska Commission for Postsecondary Education ( ACPE ) After finding out that the XXXX had a brand-new 5.2 % loan refinance plan, I was elated, estimating this new " Refi '' plan would drop my monthly payments by more than {$200.00}, and lower my long-term loan costs through my remaining XXXX month term by ~ {$30000.00}. 

Although I meet all the other requirements, never having defaulted, making years of full payments on time, being gainfully employed, and having good credit, I was shocked to see a line-item exclusion on this Refi plan : It says " Alaska Residents Only. '' I called the ACPE to question this rule, and was told on the phone " Sorry, just go go the XXXX loans refinanced by someone else. '' Despite refi interest rates far higher than the refi plan with XXXX, I submitted consolidation apps to XXXX different loan consolidators, including XXXX XXXX ( my own bank ), XXXX, and XXXX. All were rejected. 

Horrified, I emailed the State of Alaska 's Attorney General and the State Senate Minority Leader to appeal the legitimacy and ethics related to excluding *existing borrowers* and *former residents* who do not " currently reside '' in Alaska from this new student debt relief plan. 

I brought up a number of problems relating to how the State of Alaska, as a public education loan provider, a receiver of federal funds, and a former IRS tax-exempt issuer of student loan bonds, could prohibit former residents who pay very high interest ( such as myself ) from being able to refinance their loans with the exact same provider, under nearly identical 15-year terms. I noted in my email that my XXXX loans take 30 % of my net income every month to pay. 

I also questioned the legality of this line-item " current resident '' exclusion ( Alaska Statute XXXX ) from a federal standpoint. The U.S. Constitution 's Privileges and Immunities Clause, for example, prohibits exactly this type of differential exclusion as the rule directly concerns the deprivation of personal health, property, and happiness ). Moreover, this involves a " resident '' who was eligible at the time. 

I brought up in my email that as a former long-term Alaska resident who fits the exact model the Refi program is trying to help, the " current '' residency exception was discriminatory to borrowers who *were* residents at the time of loan issuance, pushing this type of eligibility outside of the boundaries of fair lending practices, especially as a public education loan provider. 

Within 3 days, all the issues I petitioned in my email were categorically rejected via an emailed letter from the ACPE secretary, copied to ACPE 's Acting Executive Director and the State 's Assistant Attorney General. 

I am deciding whether to file a class-action lawsuit against the ACPE/ASLC ( which would go to the AK Attorney General 's office ) to appeal this residency exception as unfair, unethical, and irresponsible. 

I thought I 'd contact the XXXX first. Even if I was able to win a case to strike this rule down in federal and/or state court, I do n't have the time, money, or legal resources to deal with years of appeals and administrative roadblocks to State of Alaska will likely throw my way. 

I 'm formally requesting help from the XXXX, as this is a very serious issue for my future financial viability and is hindering my ability to live a normal life.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation