| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. W. W. Osborn, Jr. | Analyst |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Linda D. Simmons | Member | |
| Mr. Frank C. Jones, II | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his date of rank be changed to 10 April 2001, the date he entered the Army.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that sending him, an Reserve Officer Training Course graduate, to basic combat training and to Officer Candidate School (OCS) was an error and an injustice. He submits his application for commission with supporting documents. These include: A 13 July 2000 letter from the former Professor of Military Science at Austin Peay University, Clarksville, Tennessee concerning his efforts to help the applicant obtain a commission, and; an 11 December 2001 memorandum form the Inspector General (IG), Recruiting Command.
COUNSEL CONTENDS: Counsel offers no evidence or argument beyond that submitted with the application.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant, a former noncommissioned officer in the German Army from 1987 to 1996, immigrated to the United States. He earned a Bachelor of Science and completed ROTC requirements at Austin Peay University, Clarksville, Tennessee in May 1999 but could not be commissioned since he was not an American citizen.
He became a naturalized citizen on 23 June 2000, enlisted on 10 April 2001 and applied for OCS on 5 September 2001. He completed OCS and was commissioned on 11 October 2001. His date of rank as a second lieutenant was established as 11 October 2001, the date he was commissioned.
The 13 July 2000 letter from the former Professor of Military Science at Austin Peay states in pertinent part "we now know that his only option is to be considered for a direct commission."
The 11 December 2001 memorandum from the IG, Recruiting Command, states, in effect, that no error had been made during the enlistment process because recruiters were not trained in nor required to possess any knowledge of direct appointment commissioning requirements.
During the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Total Army Personnel Command. It noted that the enlisted service is not an authorized adjustment to date of rank and recommended that the applicant's request be denied.
In rebuttal to the advisory opinion the applicant maintains that the Recruiting Command IG admitted that a mistake was made by his enlistment. He maintains that "According to the Deputy Chief of Staff of Army Personnel, was this procedure was not only incorrect, but against Army Regulations. Applicants that have completed 'one pre-commissioning track' such as ROTC, are no longer eligible to complete another, such as OCS." Therefore, even though he attended OCS he required a waiver from the Deputy Chief of Staff of Army Personnel in order to receive a commission.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion, it is concluded:
1. There is no available evidence to show that the applicant was misled or induced to take some course of action though being furnished faulty information.
2. The 13 July 2000 letter from the former Professor of Military Science indicates that, at least as early as that date, the applicant was aware of the path open to him, yet he chose to enlist and apply to OCS.
3. As far as can be determined, the applicant voluntarily enlisted. He also voluntarily accepted a commission with a date of rank based upon the date of his commissioning. The Board concludes no error or injustice occurred.
4. There is no available evidence to show that, based on the needs of the Army, the applicant would have received a direct appointment at the time he enlisted, that he would have been commissioned at all had he not completed OCS or that he would have received a concurrent call to active duty had he not followed the course he actually took.
5. 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 record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
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
__WTM _ _LDS ___ __FCJ___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002075717 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 30030306 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 131.05 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150007367
The applicant was provided a copy of his ROTC contract and a DD Form 785 (Record of Disenrollment from Officer Candidate-Type Training). It also shows, on 14 March 2013, an exception to U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) business rules was approved (i.e., ROTC not ordered to active duty) allowing the applicant to enlist in the Regular Army (RA) in pay grade E-3 based on his service in the USAR (ROTC). As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060005985C070205
The applicant further states that after his disenrollment, his school sent him a letter in 2003 stating that he was in breach of contract as described in DA Form 597-3 (Army Senior ROTC Scholarship Cadet Contract), page 7, sections 9 and 10. The applicant's records show he enlisted in the United States Army Reserve (USAR), as a cadet, on 18 January 2001, and was contracted under the ROTC Scholarship Cadet Program. Notwithstanding the advisory opinion, it would be equitable to amend his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001614
The evidence of record shows her LDAC cadre recommended she be granted a waiver and allowed a fourth attempt to complete the Land Navigation course; however, the approval authority disapproved her waiver request and dismissed her from LDAC without credit but with authorization to return the next year. In regard to other cadets receiving preferential treatment, the applicant provides no evidence, other than her personal account, to support her contention that other cadets received a fourth...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 04102232C070208
The applicant states that he terminated his ROTC scholarship voluntarily and, rather than pay back the scholarship funds, elected to enlist in the Army. However, a 22 January 2001 memorandum from the United States Army Cadet Command, to the Professor of Military Science at Pittsburg State University indicated that the applicant had elected to make monetary repayment of the scholarship funds he received. In view of the fact that the applicant’s cash enlistment bonus of $16,000, a bonus he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081610C070215
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. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120008293
The applicant requests her record be corrected to show she was placed on the U.S. Army Commissioned List for August 2010 instead of 10 June 2011 (the date of her current commission). She ultimately decided to graduate from college on 13 August 2010 in lieu of waiting until she completed the ROTC requirements for MS 402. g. On 2 September 2010, she submitted a second CI requesting the PMS honor the letter from the APMS which stated that a battle analysis was the only requirement she needed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012112
The applicant states that as a member of the Enlisted Reserve Corps (ERC), he entered active duty after completion of the first two years of senior Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC). The applicants WD AGO Form 53-55 also shows the applicant entered active duty on 14 July 1943 in Iowa City. It is unclear if the applicant was qualified for the higher grade.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001054500C070420
He participated in the SMP as member of the Louisiana State University ROTC and the ARNG from 24 August 1978 until his commissioning on 30 May 1980. Public Law (PL) 104-201, Section 507, dated 23 September 1996, amended the provisions of the law to provide service credit to officers commissioned from the ROTC Advanced Course program who also participated in the SMP, retroactive to 1 August 1979 when the SMP began. BOARD VOTE : _jh__ _tfb_ jtm__ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130004061
The applicant submitted a DD Form 597-3, dated 22 July 2008, which shows in: a. Paragraph 5 (Terms of Disenrollment) of the applicant's DA Form 597-3 states that if the cadet were disenrolled from the ROTC Program for any reason, the Secretary of the Army could order the cadet to reimburse the United States the dollar amount plus interest that bears the same ratio to the total cost of the scholarship financial assistance provided by the United States to the cadet as the unserved portion of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090018311
On 30 July 2009, the applicant responded to the advisory opinion by stating, in pertinent part, that at the time of his disenrollment from the ROTC program, the PMS informed him that in addition to electing to pay back his debt or enlisting in military service, he was also afforded a third choice to continue his education and upon graduation enlist in the Army to fulfill his financial obligation incurred as a result of his breached ROTC scholarship contract. The applicant's enlistment and...