relation to the grant of relief from the automatic stay. 28 . In following the analytic framework of Hernandez, I recognize that the case may hold implicitly that the fact that a debt is nondis-chargeable under § 523(a)(8) and that, outside the ba (concluding that a plan to fully pay a student loan obligation while paying all other unsecured claims a dividend of 3% unfairly discriminated against the class of other unsecured creditors) and In re Thibodeau, 248 B.R. 699 (Bankr.D.Mass.2000) (applying four-prong test of In re Leser, 939 F.2d 669 (8th Cir.1991) to conclude that a 36-month plan unfairly discriminated where it proposed to fully pay student loan debt while providing only a 27% dividend on other general unsecured claims) with In re Dodds, 140 B.R. 542 (Bankr.D.Mont.1992) (<HOLDING>) and In re Boggan, 125 B.R. 533
holding that unsecured creditor could not appeal decision determining priority among secured creditors because it would not affect the payment of his claims holding that plan proposing and payment of nondischargeable student loan in full outside plan according to its terms for 54 months and 79 payment to unsecured creditors over 36 months did not discriminate unfairly among unsecured class holding that plan did not unfairly discriminate against unsecured noteholder class receiving 327 percent recovery while awarding general unsecured creditors a 100 percent recovery because differing treatment was justified holding that the fresh start was a legitimate interest to discriminate in a plan whereby the debtor proposed to pay the student loan in full while paying 15 of the other unsecured claims holding that a 56month chapter 13 plan that proposed to pay 17 of the anticipated dividend to student loan creditors while making no distribution to other unsecured creditors unfairly discriminates and could not be confirmed