Jоn P. Goulet filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and, pursuant to an adversary proceeding, sought to discharge his government-guaranteed educational loans owed to the defendant, Educational Credit Management Corporation (“ECMC”), a not-for-profit organization that administers guaranteed student loans. After a hearing on the merits, the bankruptcy court concluded that the student loans would impose an “undue hardship” on Goulet under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8), and therefore entered an order discharging the loans. ECMC appealed to the district court, which reversed the decision of the bankruptcy court. In re
Goulet,
I.
The bankruptcy court made the following findings of fact. The debtor, Jon P. Goulet, is 55 years old, lives with his mother in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, and helps her around the house since his father recently died. Goulet has an 11-year-old son, of whom he does not have custody. He owes $228 per month in child support. At the time of the bankruptcy court proceedings, Goulet’s mother was paying one-half of the monthly payment on his behalf and he was in arrears on the child support obligation. Goulet’s mother generally supports him from her own income, including her Social Security payment, and does not charge him any rent or lodging expenses. He does not receive any form of public assistance.
After graduating high school in Wisconsin in 1963, Goulet attended the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire periodically from 1963 through 1968. In 1969, he transferred to Regis University in Denver, Colorado (at that time known as Loretta Heights) and, in 1972, he earned his bachelor’s degree in history, graduating with a 3.45 GPA. Between 1972 and 1983, he worked at various jobs in Denver, including bartending and restaurant management. In 1984, he mоved back to Eau Claire and became a life insurance agent. For the next few years, he made a steady, comfortable living and his income ranged from approximately $20,000 to $30,000.
*776 Then, Goulet’s fortunes took a turn for the worse. In 1989, he had his insurance license revoked due to a charge of insurance fraud. He was also arrested for felony-possession of cocaine, with intent to deliver. 1 After attending out-patient counseling, he worked as a bouncer and bartender from 1988 through 1990. From 1991 to 1995, Goulet went back to school, attending the University of Wisconsin-Stout and completing all the required courses for a master’s in psychology with a 3.7 GPA. However, he did not obtain his degree because he failed to complete a statistical analysis for his thesis. Goulet also testified that he did not complete his master’s degree work because a counseling job requires 3,000 hours of post-degree experience and certification, which he believed he would be unable to achieve in light of his felony conviction.
After quitting the master’s degreе program, Goulet applied for and was rejected from some counseling positions. Since then, he has held various bartender positions and managed a restaurant for a short time. As recently as the district court proceeding, he was employed as a real estate agent for Edina Realty, but had yet to make a sale or obtain a listing. 2 His income for the year 2000 was $1,490.00 and his monthly expenses, excluding his child support obligation, are approximately $492.00 (or $5,904.00 annually).
While attending graduate school at UW-Stout, Goulet obtained 21 student loans totaling, with accrued interest, approximately $76,000.00. 3 The debt is accruing at a 9% interest rate. In September 1994, when his first payment was due, Goulet requestеd and received a forbearance agreement on the loans. He also timely requested and received additional forbearance agreements when subsequent payments became due, the last in May 2000. At that time, ECMC stopped granting for-bearances and Goulet subsequently filed his petition for bankruptcy, seeking relief from the debt. Goulеt never made a single payment on his student loans.
Goulet testified that he has suffered from a drug and alcohol problem for approximately 30 years. He has never sought in-patient treatment, but he has had some out-patient counseling, notably through Alcoholics Anonymous. The bankruptcy court heard the testimony of Mr. John Siebold, the manager of thе club at the Eau Claire Golf and Country Club where Goulet had been a bartender. Sie-bold testified that he had never observed any indication that Goulet had an alcohol or drug abuse problem, but the court discounted this testimony, concluding that “we know as lawyers many of our colleagues go home and they’re drinking every night.” The bankruptcy court then concluded that Goulet was “a smart guy and [has] great capabilities .... [and] also [has] a significant problem in that [he has] an addiction.” The bankruptcy court also investigated whether Goulet would have the ability to make payments in the future. During the hearing, it heard the testimony *777 of Mr. Jim Theisen, an owner of a successful real estate business, who testified that first-year reаl estate agents made $17,000 to $40,000 and second-year agents made $25,000 to $60,000. The court, however, discounted Mr. Theisen’s testimony, noting that “although we know you can make good money in the real estate business .... there are many people I know who wash out in that industry.”
After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances, the bankruptcy court, apрlying our circuit’s test for “undue hardship,” determined that Goulet did not have the money to make payments, that his inability to pay would persist for the significant future, and that he had made a good faith effort to repay the debt. The court thereby discharged Goulet’s student loans. ECMC appealed the bankruptcy court’s decision and the federal district court reversed. Goulet appeals.
II.
We must decide whether Goulet established that he would suffer “undue hardship” if his student loans were not discharged. Student loans are not dis-chargeable in bankruptcy unless they will constitute an “undue hardship” on the debtor.
See
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8).
4
The Bankruptcy Code does not define “undue hardship,” but this circuit has adopted the Second Circuit’s three-pronged
Brunner
test,
see Brunner v. New York State Higher Educ. Serv. Corp.,
We now turn to the inquiry of “whether [Goulet’s] circumstances meet that test, a question of law subject to
de novo
review.”
Roberson,
In examining the first Brunner prong, Goulet’s financial condition, both parties agrеe that Goulet cannot maintain, based on his current income and expenses, a minimal standard of living for himself. At the time of the bankruptcy hearing, Goul-et’s yearly expenses, without factoring in his student loan debt, were approximately $5,904.00. This amount easily exceeds his most recent annual income of $1,490.00. Therefore, he has clearly established the first рrong of the Brunner test.
Turning to the second prong, we look at whether additional circumstances exist indicating that Goulet’s state of affairs is likely to persist for a significant portion of the repayment period. We stated in
Roberson
that this second prong “imputes to the meaning of ‘undue hardship’ a requirement that the debtor show his dire financial condition is likely to exist for a significant portion of the repayment period.... Accordingly, the dischargeability of student loans should be based upon the
certainty of hopelessness,
not simply a present inability to fulfill financial commitment.”
Roberson,
Here, Goulet contends that his age, the enormous amount of his debt, his alcohol and substance abuse problems and his felony conviction create substantial barriers to his ability to repay his student loans. He argues that amortization of a $76,000.00 debt over 20 years (when he would be almost 76 years old), accruing interest at 9% per year, would require him to pay over $600 per month, and that this would be impossible to do without imposing an undue hardship upon him. The bankruptcy court accepted this argument and determined that Goulet’s inability to pay would persist, stating that “the evidence is absolutely clear, based on his past history, that it will persist; because during the whole decade of thе 90’s we see that he hasn’t had the capacity to make these payments.” In contrast, the district court determined that “[v]irtually any job would permit him to make payments on the loan while satisfying his personal needs .... common sense requires the conclusion that he could obtain some job which would permit loan payments.”
Goulet,
We do not believe that thе bankruptcy court clearly erred in its factual findings,
*779
but rather conclude that it erred, as a matter of law, in holding that Goulet’s circumstances rise to the level of those “additional, exceptional circumstances” necessary to satisfy the second prong of the
Brunner
“undue hardship” test. Goul-et’s contention that his alcoholism and felony conviction make it impossible for him to find work is unpersuasive. By his own admission, these circumstances predated his attendance at UW Stout and his acceptance of the responsibility of these student loans. By returning to graduate school at the age of 45 and voluntarily assuming the debt, Goulet must have believed that he had future earnings potential.
See Roberson,
Finally, we turn to the third prong of the
Brunner
test and examine whether Goulet has made a good faith effort to repay the outstanding loans. This factor recognizes that “[wjith the receipt of a government-guaranteed education, the student assumes an obligation to make a good faith effort to repay those loans, as measured by his or her efforts to obtain employment, maximize income, and minimize expenses.”
Roberson,
While we are not totally unsympathetic to Goulet’s plight, we have noted, “if the leveraged investment of an education does not generate the return the borrower anticipated, the
student,
not the taxpayers, must accept the consequences of the decision to borrow.”
Roberson,
III.
In sum, we conclude that Goulet has not demonstrated that the repayment of his student loans would constitute an “undue hardship” under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) and we therefore Affirm the district court’s decision that the debt was nondischargeable.
Notes
.The record does not clearly establish when this conviction took place. Goulet testified that he was arrested in April of 1998, but the bankruptcy court found that he was arrested in 1980. In the context of other testimony, it appears to us that the accurate date is 1988, but while the actual date may be unclear, the fact of the conviction is not disputed. Goulet also testified that he had another felony conviction when he was 19 years old, but the record does not reveal the nature or disposition of this conviction.
. Goulet's counsel reported at oral argument that, as of the time he drafted the appellate brief, Goulet was unemployed.
. Goulet’s counsel reported at oral argument that the amount owing had now exceeded $80,000.00.
. This section prohibits the discharge of an individual debtor from any debt "for an educational benefit overpayment or loan made, insured or guaranteed by a governmental unit, or made under any program funded in whole or in part by a governmental unit or nonprofit institution, or for an obligation to repay funds received as an educational benefit, schоlarship or stipend, unless excepting such debt from discharge under this paragraph will impose an undue hardship on the debtor and the debtor’s dependents.” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) (emphasis added).
. For the same reason, we need not reach Goulet’s contention that there is no statutory basis for the third prong of the Brunner test. He argues that, since the statute merely asks whether the loans will impose an undue hardship on the debtor, we should not consider the debtor’s past behavior.