This is a student loan case in which the debtor seeks a discharge on the grounds of undue hardship. The court will grant summary judgment to the State of Alaska and hold that the student loan owed to it is nondischargeable under 11 USC § 523(a)(8).

     1. BACKGROUND - Steven Michael Petrini is the debtor in this chapter 7 case which he filed on January 17, 1989. On the petition date he was indebted to the State of Alaska, Commission on Postsecondary Education, for a student loan.

    2 ABR 289       Mr. Petrini filed this adversary proceeding to establish that he was entitled to a hardship discharge of his student loan under 11 USC § 523(a)(8).

     The student loan first became due on November 1, 1984, within five years of the date of the petition. Mr. Petrini has a wife and three children, ages 8 years, 4 years, and 10 months. He alleges his wife suffers from arthritis. He is living on welfare and AFDC payments.

     The student loan was incurred to provide training as a welder to Petrini. He has a varied work history. He had a military occupation as a jet mechanic. He has some experience in the construction trades, such as carpentry. He has experience in food serviced. Petrini says he is caught in a no-win situation. Jobs are not plentiful, and accepting one will detract from his monthly public benefits. That is, he will not make enough to even compensate for the loss of benefits. He has worked very little in the last three years. Nonetheless, he is only 37 years old and his health is excellent.

     The State indicates his student loan payments are now $56.86 per month, and it is willing to restructure them if called for. The State cites a history of Petrini failing to keep it advised of his whereabouts and a spotty repayment history despite generous extensions and grace periods. As of January 22, 1991, the amount owed on the loan was a principal balance of $3,477.38 plus interest at 5% per year. Affidavit of Patty Fouse (Docket No. 15 filed January 27, 1992).

    2 ABR 290       Petrini has offered no evidence regarding his future employment prospects or the lack of them.

     2. ANALYSIS - A student loan is defined in 11 USC § 523(a)(8) as "an educational loan made, insured, or guaranteed by a governmental unit, • • •." A governmental unit is a defined term in bankruptcy, 11 USC § 101(27), and includes a state. Student loans are nondischargeable with two exceptions. The exceptions are those loans which are stale and those which will create an undue hardship.

     At the time of his petition, the statute discharged student loans that first became due more than five years before the date of the petition. The time limit has since been increased to seven years. § 523(a)(8)(A). Petrini filed bankruptcy too soon to take advantage of this provision.

     § ;523(a)(8)(B) provides for a hardship discharge where nondischargeability of the debt "will impose an undue hardship on the debtor or the debtor's dependents". This is Petrini's claim.

     In general, in a dischargeability action, the creditor seeking a judgment of nondischargeability bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Grogan v. Garner, ______ US ______, 111 SCt 654, 112 LEd2d 755 (1991), and In re Webb, 132 BR 199, 201 (Bankr MD Fla 1991). However, the debtor in a student loan case who claims undue hardship, bears the burden of establishing the claim. Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education v Jester, 1 ABR 503, 505 (D Alaska 1991).

    2 ABR 291       Jester cited with approval Bruner v. New York State Higher Education Services Corp., 831 F2d 395, 396 (2nd Cir 1987) which established a three-part test:

(1) that the debtor cannot maintain, based on current income and expenses, a 'minimal' standard of living for herself and her dependents if forced to repay the loans; (2) that additional circumstances exist indicating that this state of affairs is likely to persist for a significant portion of the repayment period of the student loans; and (3) that the debtor has made good faith efforts to repay the loans.

     The general perception regarding bankruptcy is that it is debtor oriented and always attuned to debt forgiveness. In the area of student loans, however, Congress adopted a policy which is stricter and less forgiving, making many loans nondischargeable. 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 523.18 (15th ed 1991).

     The State of Alaska has filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that the debtor has failed to meet all three prongs of the test. The State acknowledges that the debtor is living on AFDC payments and other forms of public assistance for himself, his three children, and his wife. Nonetheless, the debtor has had training as a welder, in carpentry, and in various construction and food service trades. The debtor has not worked for about three years, but is only 37 years old and in good health.

     The debtor has made no showing that the financial problems of the debtor will persist for a significant period of the repayment schedule for the student loans. His main complaint is that he cannot get off welfare since going back to work results in less income due to loss of benefits.

    2 ABR 292       If nothing else, the state has available to it a portion of the Alaska Permanent Fund dividend check of the debtor for so long as he remains in Alaska as a source of repayment. AS 43.23.065(b)(3).

     The State has met its burden to show that a nondischargeable student loan exists. Petrini has the burden of proof to show undue hardship. Jester at 505. It is up to the debtor to show that he fits within the three tests for undue hardship of Brunner to prevail. Given the State's affidavits, its reliance on debtor's admissions in his discovery answers, and the lack of factual rebuttal by the debtor, he has not established that his present financial hardship will last into the foreseeable future as defined in the second test in Brunner, i.e. that the hardship will last unremittingly into the future. See St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v Fort Vancouver Plywood Co. (In re Brazier Forest Products, Inc.), 921 F2d 221, 223 (9th Cir 1990):

     In Celotex [Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)], the Supreme Court recognized that the moving party always bears the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Id. at 323, 106 S.Ct. at 2552. However, if the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof on an issue at trial, the moving party need not produce affirmative evidence of an absence of fact to satisfy its burden. Id. The moving party may simply point to the absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case. Id. The nonmoving party must then make a sufficient showing to establish the existence of all elements essential to their case on which they will bear the burden of proof at trial. Id. at 322-23, 106 S.Ct. at 2552-53. If the nonmoving party fails to make such a showing, summary judgment will be granted because "a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial." Id.

    2 ABR 293       Therefore, summary judgment should go to the State on this issue.

     While I commiserate with the debtor's current financial situation, there is no showing that it will not later improve. The State of Alaska has indicated a willingness to defer or reduce payments, and, indeed, cannot reach any substantial portion of debtor's assets while he is in dire straits.

     Therefore, I find that summary judgment should be GRANTED to the State of Alaska.