MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 1 August 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR200106623

         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. Walter Avery, Jr.		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Samuel A. Crumper		Chairperson
Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member
Ms. Regan K. Smith		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: In effect, that his Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) scholarship debt be forgiven.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was asked to leave the Auburn University Army ROTC program. Several months after leaving he was asked by the Professor of Military Science (PMS) to return to the program because he (the PMS) had unfairly removed the applicant and he was feeling pressure from his superiors. The PMS has since been removed from the Auburn University ROTC program. The applicant believes it is unfair and unjust that he must repay his ROTC scholarship. (The PMS is the senior military officer at the college level, responsible for administering the ROTC program.)

The applicant submits no evidence or documents to support his request.

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

He was awarded a two year ROTC scholarship and enrolled in the ROTC program at Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama. Currently, he has no military status.

On 19 September 1996, he signed a DA Form 597-3, Army Senior ROTC Scholarship Cadet Contract.

On 30 September 1997, the applicant was counseled by an ROTC representative. The applicant was counseled for failure to attend the Military Science (MS) IV battalion training class 22 September, failure to attend the MSIV diagnostic Army Physical Fitness Test on 24 September 1997, and for being late to the MSIV cadet staff meeting on 25 September 1997. The applicant signed that he concurred with the counseling comments and made no statement on his own behalf.

Between 2 October 1997 and 7 January 1998, the applicant was formally counseled on six additional occasions for various ROTC program violations. On each occasion the applicant signed that he concurred with the counseling and made no statement on his own behalf.

On 7 September 1999, the PMS informed the applicant that action was being initiated to disenroll him from the ROTC program due to his indifferent attitude or lack of interest in military service as evidenced by his frequent absences from Military Science classes, Labs, physical training, and failure to take a scheduled Army Physical Fitness test.




On 29 December 1999, the applicant notified the PMS that he had waived his right to a hearing and also declined to elect expeditious call to active duty.

On 26 January 1999, the applicant informed the PMS that he was unable to re-enroll in the ROTC program. (It appears that the applicant inadvertently used the year 1999 instead of 2000). When he was disenrolled he tried every way that he could to appeal the decision. However, when he agreed to withdraw his appeal and accept the offer to reimburse the government for the monies paid to him, he immediately made plans to complete his degree and enter the workforce. He has since been placed in a Management Training Program. To re-enroll in Army ROTC would force him to stay at Auburn University, complete the program and require him to sacrifice the plans and commitments he had made.

On 28 February 2000, Cadet Command notified the applicant he was disenrolled from the Army ROTC Program under Army Regulation 145-1, Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps Program: Organization, Administration and Training, paragraph 3-43a(16), based on his indifferent attitude or lack of interest in military science as evidenced by his frequent absences from Military Science classes and trainings. He was further informed that once the ROTC scholarship contract was breached, any obligation to the Army had to be satisfied through order to active duty in an enlisted status or by repaying the cost of advanced education assistance provide by the Army. An up-to-date total amount of monies spent in support of his educational assistance was $5,085.00.

On 26 April 2000, the applicant signed a document promising to make repayment of the total amount owed, $5,085.00, in monthly payments, plus interest on the amount owed.

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 ROTC cadet. The form contains the promises made between the Army and the cadet, and includes the action the Army will take in the event the cadet fails to successfully complete the terms of the contract. The applicant acknowledges that he will remain a full-time student until he receives his degree. This includes completing the required ROTC classes, which may be part of or in addition to those courses, required for his degree. The applicant also agrees that if he is disenrolled from the ROTC program for any reason or fails to accept a commission if offered he may at the discretion of the Army, be directed, in lieu of being ordered to active duty as a private for a period as specified in paragraph 8 of this contract, to






reimburse the United States through repayment of an amount of money, plus interest, equal to the entire amount of financial assistance paid by the United States for his advanced education from the commencement of the contractual agreement to the date of his disenrollment.

DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1. The Board finds no question of fairness in the preparation or processing of the applicant’s disenrollment due to ROTC Advanced Camp failure. Further, the Board concludes that his disenrollment from the ROTC program was proper and in accordance with regulatory requirements and there is no basis to relieve him of his ROTC indebtedness.

2. The applicant accepted the ROTC scholarship and agreed that if he was disenrolled for any reason he would either serve in the Army at the rank of private or reimburse the United States the amount of money, plus interest, equal to the entire amount of financial assistance paid by the United States. Documents indicate the applicant chose to repay his assistance benefit.

3. The record of the applicant's counseling does not support his statement that his disenrollment was unfair or unjust, but indicates his disenrollment was based on his lack of performance in the ROTC program. When the applicant failed to enroll in ROTC classes, he breached his ROTC contract. In addition, on the several occasions that the applicant was counseled concerning his performance in the ROTC program and advised of the disenrollment action, the applicant did not raise any of the issues now raised in his request to the Board.

4. In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear that the records are in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.












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

___sac__ ____mhm ____rks__ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001066023
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20020801
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	104.03
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.