APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That her debt of over $34,000.00 be forgiven.

APPLICANT STATES:  In several letters she had sent attempting to have her debt forgiven administratively, that she and other woman cadets in the Army Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) program at her college were the subject of sexual harassment.  When she attempted to transfer to the Air Force ROTC, the Army ROTC delayed her request with numerous inquiries and boards and finally decided not to release her from her Army ROTC scholarship contract.  Due to her unwillingness to return to an atmosphere of sexual harassment, she chose not to comply with that decision.  She believes that it is a miscarriage of justice to conclude that she attempted to willfully evade her Army ROTC contract under these circumstances and, therefore, should not be required to reimburse the Army for her scholarship.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records (ROTC cadet records) were not provided to the Board.  The following information was derived from correspondence files maintained at ROTC command.

She enlisted in the ROTC on 22 August 1990 with a 
4-year scholarship.

The applicant was processed for disenrollment from the ROTC in August 1993 based on her written statement that she would not attend ROTC advanced camp that summer.  The disenrollment board which considered her case dismissed the proceedings due to the failure of the Army to enter her advanced camp orders into evidence.

New disenrollment proceedings were initiated against her in March 1994 based on her failure to enroll in ROTC classes in the spring 1994 semester.  Those proceedings resulted in a recommendation that she be disenrolled from ROTC.  In an effort to accommodate the applicant’s expressed desire for expeditious disenrollment, her professor of military science (PMS) terminated the disenrollment board and allowed the applicant to waive action by an investigating officer or disenrollment board, which would allow for the local approval of the disenrollment.  The notification to a cadet that he or she is being considered for disenrollment and of his or her option to waive an investigating officer and disenrollment board explains that he or she is subject to either repaying all of the scholarship benefits received or being involuntarily ordered to active duty in an enlisted status.  The applicant was so notified and waived an investigating officer and disenrollment board.

On 19 May 1994 the applicant was offered the opportunity to elect a repayment option.  When she failed to elect an option, she was issued involuntary active duty orders.  Upon receipt of those orders the applicant chose a repayment option, thereby agreeing to repay her scholarship, and her active duty orders were revoked.

Investigation into the applicant’s allegations was conducted by the Second ROTC Region, U.S. Army Cadet Command.  That investigation concluded that a new PMS was assigned to the applicant’s college in 1992.  In September of that year the new PMS had initiated a sexual harassment awareness and prevention program.  Subsequent questioning of the women cadets, including the applicant, produced statements that the sexual harassment prevention program was effective and had greatly improved the attitudes towards women within the unit.  The Second ROTC Region continued that it informally investigated the incidents of harassment cited by the applicant, but due to the passage of time (1990 and 1991 incidents) and the lack of detail concerning any specific incident, no evidence of sexual harassment could be identified.  The Second ROTC Region also stated that Army scholarship cadets are precluded from being released to other services and that there was no evidence that the applicant was told that she would be granted an exception to policy in that regard.

As part of a scholarship enlistment in the ROTC, an individual must sign a DA Form 597-3, which is the agreement between the Army and a potential ROTC cadet.  That 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.  In that form the potential cadet states that "I understand the commitment point at which I may not voluntarily withdraw from the scholarship program without penalty varies by scholarship as follows:  
(1)  A four-year recipient cannot voluntarily withdraw at any time after beginning the first Military Science class of the sophomore year; MS II or the second year of the scholarship." and "If, subsequent to the commitment points listed above, I fail to abide by the terms and conditions set forth in this contract and am disenrolled, I understand that the Secretary of the Army may order me to active duty as an enlisted member, and I will serve on active duty for the periods listed below:  During MS II - 2-years; During MS III - 
3-years; [and] During MS IV or refuse to accept commission - 4-years." and "I also understand that I do not have the option to elect monetary reimbursement in lieu of my service on Active Duty and/or duty in the Reserve Component as prescribed by the Army."  That 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 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 regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant allegation that she was the subject of sexual harassment while a member of the Army ROTC program cannot be substantiated by the evidence of record.  The applicant never filed a sexual harassment complaint or otherwise complained about her treatment as a female cadet while she was attending military science classes with the Army ROTC.  However, it is noted that upon assignment the new PMS implemented a sexual harassment class which was reported to be successful.  Whether that class was initiated due to a perception of friction between the genders or as a precautionary measure is not known.  The applicant also was ineligible to transfer to the Air Force ROTC cadet program.

2.  As such, the applicant has no legitimate reason for her failure to comply with the terms of her scholarship contract.  Therefore, her refusal to attend advanced camp and her refusal to enroll in ROTC classes can only be viewed as willful evasion of her scholarship contract, a finding which required her to either be ordered to involuntary active duty in her enlisted status or to repay her scholarship.

3.  It is noted that the applicant could have appealed her original disenrollment board’s findings and recommendation but instead choose to waive an investigating officer and disenrollment board.  She made that decision with full knowledge that she would either be ordered to involuntary active duty in her enlisted status or be required to repay her scholarship.

4.  The Board also notes that the applicant chose to repay her scholarship to avoid being ordered to active duty.  She must now honor her own decision.

5.  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

                       DENY APPLICATION




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director