MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           29 May 2003                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002081610

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Mr. Frank C. Jones, II		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his $32,900.00 debt, incurred as a result of his Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) scholarship being recouped, be remitted.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was having “issues” with a lieutenant colonel (LTC) who was one of his ROTC cadre.  When he complained about the LTC in question, an Inspector General (IG) hearing was conducted.  The panel who conducted the IG hearing told him that what happened to him while in the ROTC was wrong and shouldn’t have happened.  The panel promised him that they would provide him a copy of the audiotape of the hearing and other documentation to allow him to later defend himself, if needed.  Unfortunately, he has never been given that audiotape.  The applicant adds that he was receiving other types of scholarships when he accepted the ROTC scholarship, and would only owe around $6,000.00 to $8,000.00 in student loans if he had not accepted the ROTC scholarship.  The applicant concludes that “the only alternative if required to repay this money would be to go to court with the audiotape (still waiting to be supplied) and documents I have in my possession.  I do not want this because it will be an embarrassment for the military and myself.  I believe it is in both of our interests for you to not seek recoupment of the amount owed.”

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He contracted for a 3-year ROTC scholarship on 13 August 1998.

On 5 April 2000, orders were issued to the applicant for ROTC advanced camp.

On 6 April 2000, the applicant was counseled concerning his failure to report to a field training exercise, and told that such behavior could lead to his disenrollment from the ROTC.

On 4 May 2000, the applicant submitted a letter stating that he would not attend the ROTC advanced camp, and expressing his intention to disenroll from the ROTC.

On 10 August 2000, the applicant was offered an opportunity to forgo disenrollment proceedings, remain in the ROTC, and attend ROTC advanced camp.  The applicant declined that offer.

On 23 August 2000, a board of officers was convened to determine whether the applicant should be disenrolled from the ROTC and, if disenrollment was recommended, whether the reason for disenrollment should be considered willful evasion of his ROTC contract.  The board of officers found that the applicant failed to perform an act which was required (attend ROTC advanced camp), and that failure constituted a material breach of his ROTC contract.  The board of officers recommended that the applicant be disenrolled from the ROTC and be required to pay back his scholarship.

On 15 November 2000, the applicant submitted a rebuttal to the board of officer’s findings and recommendation.  The findings and recommendation of the board of officers was approved after a review of the applicant’s rebuttal.  

On 10 January 2001, the applicant was notified that the findings and recommendation of the board of officers had been approved, and that as a result he would be required to repay his ROTC scholarship money.

On 6 March 2001, the applicant appealed the decision to approve the findings and recommendation of the board of officers.  

On 25 February 2002, the Director of Military Personnel Policy (DMPP), Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, ratified the validity of the applicant’s ROTC scholarship debt based on his voluntary breach of his ROTC scholarship contract.

As part of accepting a scholarship in the ROTC, an individual must sign a 
DA Form 597-3, which is the agreement between the Army and a potential ROTC cadet.  This form contains the promises made between the Army and the potential cadet, and includes what action the Army will take in the event that a cadet fails to successfully complete the terms of the contract.  This form defines willful evasion as "...an intentional act or omission, on the part of a student, which act is designed to breach the terms of this contract or to avoid appointment or service as an officer.  The parties specifically agree that the following acts, although not all inclusive, are expressly defined as acts of "willful evasion" as that term is used within this contract.  (1) Refusal of the cadet to take steps to initiate the application for a commission at the time of the cadet's completion of the ROTC program.  (2) Refusal to accept a commission at the time it is offered to the cadet.  (3) Without having first obtained the prior written consent from the Professor of Military Science (PMS), dropping ROTC from the normal course load of the cadet, reducing the course load to a level below that of a full time student, as that term is defined by this contract, dropping out of school, transferring to another institution of advanced education without the written permission of the PMS, feigning a disqualifying physical condition or deliberately concealing a disqualifying condition during the application process, failing ROTC course work while maintaining an overall grade point average adequate for degree attainment, voluntarily withdrawing from Advanced Camp, or entering the officer production program of another armed service."

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1.  The applicant refused to attend his ROTC advanced camp, an act which was specifically identified by his ROTC scholarship contract as a reason to classify his disenrollment as willful evasion.

2.  The applicant was given an opportunity to withdraw his request for disenrollment and to attend advanced camp.  He refused that offer.  This is indicative of a cadet who is willfully attempting to evade the obligations of his ROTC scholarship contract.

3.  The only reason the applicant gives for not attending his ROTC advanced camp was having “issues” with an LTC who was a cadre at his university.  This allegation is too vague to have any meaning.  A personality conflict would not justify his failure to attend ROTC advanced camp.  As such, there are no mitigating factors for the Board to consider in this request.

4.  The applicant’s statement that, if he were not to have accepted the ROTC scholarship, he would only have around $6,000.00 to $8,000.00 in student loans to repay because he was receiving other scholarships, is noted.  However, he did accept an ROTC scholarship, and acknowledged in that scholarship that he could be ordered to active duty or could be ordered to repay the scholarship monies if he was determined to have willfully evaded his scholarship contract.  

5.  As for the applicant’s request for a copy of an IG audiotape, no such tape was contained in his records.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____fcj___  ___lls __  ___le____  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002081610	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20030529	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	128.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.