MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 6 May 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002082142

         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. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson
Ms. Lana E. McGlynn		Member
Mr. Larry C. Bergquist		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 her debt be forgiven.

APPLICANT STATES: That she complied with the terms of her Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) scholarship contract to the best of her ability. The decision to disenroll her from the ROTC was the Army’s, not hers. She would have gladly accepted a commission. Therefore, she believes it would be in the interest of justice to forgive her debt.

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

She enlisted for the ROTC as a scholarship cadet on 14 November 1992. In conjunction with her scholarship contract, she was advised that, “[You] must understand if weight/body fat [is] not made – scholarship is no go.”

On 14 January 1993, the applicant was counseled that, “[She] must maintain her weight and work hard to stay within body fat standards. [She] needs to work on her [physical training]. I know she can improve.”

On 8 April 1993, the applicant was counseled that she needed to, “Work on maintaining the weight to meet body fat standard.”

On 13 September 1993, the applicant was counseled that she needed to, “Keep an eye on your weight.”

On 14 January 1994, the applicant requested a leave of absence (LOA) from the ROTC program due to her academic course load. That request was granted for the period January to December 1994.

On 2 February 1995, the applicant was administered a body fat measurement because she exceeded the maximum allowable weight for her sex and age (she was 5’ 2” and weighed 183 pounds). She exceeded the maximum allowable body fat standards.

On 16 February 1995, the applicant was notified that she had been determined to have exceeded her maximum allowable weight by 50 pounds, and determined to have exceeded her maximum allowable body fat content by 30 percent. She was advised to seek nutritional counseling through her nursing school. She was also advised that “Failure to [make] satisfactory progress or attain the appropriate weight standard by the end of your junior year will result in your disenrollment from the Army ROTC program.”

On 23 February 1995, the applicant was counseled that she had several unexcused absences from physical training sessions; that she had failed the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) on 25 January 1995 and that she had to pass the APFT by the end of her junior year of school; and that she did not meet the Army weight standards and that she would have to meet those standards by the end of her junior year of school. The counselor concluded “I understand you have had personal problems, but you obviously let yourself go while on LOA. Big lack of motivation. If I had to make a decision today, I would NOT recommend a commission as an officer.”

On 25 March 1995, the applicant requested camp deferment to attend mandatory summer nursing classes. That request was approved.

On 19 April 1995, the applicant was again weighed and given a body fat measurement. She weighed 190 pounds at that time and exceeded the maximum allowable body fat standards.

On 27 April 1995, the applicant was counseled that she failed the APFT again; that she had been overweight since January; that she hadn’t made any substantial improvement on her physical training; and that she had to pass the APFT and meet the body fat standards prior to 7 June 1995.

On 19 July 1995, the applicant was again weighed and given a body fat measurement. She weighed 183 pounds at that time and exceeded the maximum allowable body fat standards.

On 11 August 1995, the applicant was again weighed and given a body fat measurement. She weighed 183 pounds at that time and exceeded the maximum allowable body fat standards.

On 25 August 1995, the applicant was again weighed and given a body fat measurement. She weighed 182 pounds at that time and exceeded the maximum allowable body fat standards.

On 17 October 1995, the applicant was given a physical examination and it was determined that her overweight condition was not due to a medical condition.

On 21 October 1996, the applicant was notified that action was being initiated to disenroll her from the ROTC program because of her failure to meet height and weight standards. This notification also informed her that “You may be required to repay the amount of scholarship benefits received in lieu of being called to active duty in reserve enlisted grade of Private E1.”

The applicant waived her right to a hearing and declined expeditious call to active duty.

Accordingly, on 13 December 1996, the applicant was disenrolled from the ROTC program for breach of contract. The applicant then signed an addendum agreeing to repay the ROTC scholarship money she had been given.
The applicant’s school’s office of student accounts certified that the applicant had been given a total of $23,802.00 in ROTC scholarship payments.

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 was told when she accepted her ROTC scholarship that she had to meet the Army weight control standards to be commissioned. She was also repeatedly informed that she had to lose weight by a specified date or she would be disenrolled from the ROTC.

2. Therefore, the applicant’s disenrollment from the ROTC program should have come as no surprise to her.

3. The applicant was medically screened and determined not to have any medical condition which precluded weight loss. As such, her failure to lose weight was not due to any cause other than her obvious decision not to follow the nutritional counseling she was provided.

4. Since the applicant could not be commissioned due to her overweight condition, and since her overweight condition was not due to any medical abnormality, it was properly concluded that she breeched the terms of her ROTC scholarship contract.

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

___lem__ ____fne _ ____lcb _ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002082142
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20030506
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.	128.10
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.