RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           09 SEPTEMBER 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003098361


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

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Deborah L. Brantley           |     |Senior Analyst       |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James Vick                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. James Anderholm               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Linda Simmons                 |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that her records be corrected in
such a way as to eliminate her debt to the government based on
reimbursement of her ROTC (Reserve Officer Training Corps) scholarship.

2.  The applicant states that she lost two of her siblings while enrolled
in ROTC and that she was told by her ROTC cadre that she would not be
required to pay back any debt because of her extenuating circumstances.
She states that she recently discovered that she was indebted to the
government during a credit check.  She notes that while she was informed of
a debt in 1998 she believed that debt stemmed from overpayment of her “GI
Bill” entitlements.

3.  The applicant states that she did not sign any papers before being
disenrolled from ROTC and that she did not know about the debt until
earlier this year (2003).

4.  The applicant provides copies of her siblings’ death certificates and a
letter of support from the PMS (Professor of Military Science) at the
University of Oklahoma.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Although the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) from
her enlisted active duty service was available to the Board, only her Cadet
Record Brief was available from her time as an ROTC cadet.

2.  Those records indicate that the applicant entered active duty as an
enlisted Soldier on 28 May 1992 for a period of 2 years and 22 weeks.  She
was trained as a medical specialist and was released from active duty, at
the completion of her enlistment contract, on 28 October 1994.

3.  Apparently, based on information contained in the letter supporting her
debt relief and information contained on her Cadet Record Brief, she was
awarded a 3-year “Green to Gold” ROTC Scholarship on 1 September 1994 to
attend the University of Oklahoma.

4.  The “Green to Gold” program seeks talented young enlisted Soldiers who
have decided to leave, or are considering leaving, active duty to attend
college.  Scholarships are awarded for 2, 3, or 4 years and include tuition
support, additional money for textbooks, supplies, and equipment, a monthly
stipend for up to 10 months each school year, and if qualified, Montgomery
GI Bill or Army College Fund benefits.

5.  Army Regulation 145-1 states that ROTC scholarship cadets must complete
a contract as part of the scholarship acceptance process.  Although a copy
of the applicant’s contract was not in files available to the Board, that
contract would have informed the applicant that after the first day of her
MS (military science) II year (sophomore year) she incurred an active duty
and/or reimbursement obligation if she were “disenrolled from the ROTC
program for breach of contractual terms or any other disenrollment criteria
established now or in the future by Army regulations….”  Included under the
terms of disenrollment was information regarding the fact that by signing
the contract she acknowledged that she understood that she could be ordered
to active duty, if qualified, or “required to reimburse the United States
government through repayment of an amount of money, plus interest, equal to
the entire amount of financial assistance (to include tuition, educational
fees, books, laboratory expenses, and supplies) paid by the United States
for [her] advanced education from the commencement of this contractual
agreement to the date of [her] disenrollment or refusal to accept a
commission.”

6.  The applicant’s Cadet Record Brief indicates that the applicant signed
her contract on 1 January 1995.  The applicant was 22 years old at the
time.

7.  On 1 September 1995 the applicant’s 24-year-old brother was involved in
a motor vehicle accident in Illinois.  His body was not found until 8
September 1995, the date listed as the date of death on his death
certificate.  On 30 March 1996 the applicant’s 22 year old brother was
found dead in Texas.  His cause of death was listed as “acute respiratory
failure pending studies.”  Documents in the applicant’s OMPF indicate that
both of her parents were living, but did not indicate if there were any
other siblings.

8.  The statement of support, submitted by the PMS at the University of
Oklahoma stated that the applicant went through an extreme personal
hardship while contracted as an Army ROTC scholarship cadet, and that
following the death of her first brother in 1995 she “drove to Texas every
weekend in order to give moral support to her younger brother” who was
“extremely depressed and unstable” due to their brother’s death.  The PMS
stated that the applicant made every effort to meet her requirements as a
scholarship cadet and her family obligation, but “unfortunately, she was
unable to successfully help her brother” and he “committed suicide in March
1996.”  The PMS indicated that the applicant expressed a desire to continue
in the ROTC program but was unable to bounce back and became
“understandably” overwhelmed with the reality of the deaths of her two
brothers.

9.  The applicant’s Cadet Record Brief indicates she was placed on a leave
of absence commencing in March 1996 and that the leave of absence was
terminated in May 1998.  On 1 July 1998 she was disenrolled for
“indifference/lack of interest.”  There were no documents available to the
Board detailing the process by which the applicant was disenrolled.

10.  According to documents from the Defense Finance and Accounting
Services (DFAS), it appears that the applicant’s debt was established in
August 1998 and currently stands at nearly $4000.00.  Those same documents
indicate that the applicant contacted DFAS in November 1998 and informed
them that she was a full time student and would send documents confirming
her status as a full time student.  The documents were not received and in
April 1999 the debt was referred from the Department of the Treasury to a
collection agency.  In October 2003 the applicant again contacted DFAS when
she became aware of the debt from a credit report.  She was informed that
contrary to her belief that the debt related to GI Bill overpayments, the
debt stemmed from her ROTC scholarship.  She was advised by DFAS to submit
an application to this Board.

11.  An advisory opinion, provided by Cadet Command during the processing
of this case, recounted essentially the same information collected from the
applicant’s Cadet Record Brief and from DFAS.  They noted that the
applicant’s “discovery of the credit report is synonymous with failure to
rectify payment of a delinquent debt, especially with regard to her
telephone conversation with DFAS in Nov 98, which indicates she knew of the
just debt at that time, regardless of the origination.”  They made no
recommendation regarding relief, but did note that a debt which was
properly established could not be forgiven.  The applicant was provided a
copy of the advisory opinion for comment, but did not respond.

12.  Cadet Command Pamphlet 145-4 establishes the policies and procedure
for the disenrollment of cadets in conjunction with the provisions of Army
Regulation 145-1.  It states that at the time of notification of
disenrollment, all scholarship cadets must be informed of the exact amount
of scholarship benefits that Cadet Command has paid for a cadet’s
educational assistance and that such amount is considered a debt to the
government.  The cadets must also be notified that they have the
opportunity to dispute the amount and validity of the debt during the
disenrollment proceedings and if repayment is subsequently required, they
may appeal to the Department of the Army, Deputy Chief of Staff, within 10
days of notification that disenrollment action has been approved.

13.  Included as part of the disenrollment procedures is the opportunity
for the cadet to appear before a board of officers to “determine
suitability for retention in the Army ROTC program and [the] amount and
validity of scholarship debt.”  There is no indication that the applicant
was ever provided such an opportunity.

17.  Cadet Command Pamphlet 145-4 states, however, that disenrollment for
“personal hardship as specified in Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 6” does
not normally call for recoupment or active duty unless the cadet failed to
disclose the personal hardship.

18.  Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 6 outlines provisions for the
separation of enlisted Soldiers because of dependency or hardship.  It
notes that dependency exists when death or disability of a member of the
Soldier’s immediate family causes that member to rely upon the Soldier for
principal care or support.  Hardship exists when in circumstances not
involving death or disability of a member of the Soldier’s immediate
family, separation from the Service will materially affect the care or
support of the family by alleviating undue and genuine hardship.  The
regulation lists “brothers” as meeting the eligibility requirement as
“members of the immediate family.”

19.  Army Regulation 145-1 states that a cadet may be disenrolled for
“indifferent attitude or lack of interest” as evidenced by frequent
absences from military science classes or drill, an established pattern of
shirking, failure to successfully complete an established weight control
program, or similar acts.  Cadet Command Pamphlet 145-4 states that
recoupment of funds or active duty is appropriate for disenrollments based
on indifferent attitude or lack of interest.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The issue in this case is not when or whether the applicant was aware
of her debt to the government based on her disenrollment from ROTC, it is
whether or not the applicant should be held liable for that debt
considering the circumstances under which she left the ROTC program.

2.  While there are no documents which indicate the process by which the
applicant was disenrolled or whether she was provided an opportunity to
appear before a board of officers or to appeal repayment of debt prior to
it being established in August 1998, the evidence suggests that the
applicant’s emotional state was affected by the death of her two brothers
within months of one another. Information contained in the statement
provided by the PMS at the University of Oklahoma supports this conclusion.
3.  It is understandable, under the circumstances, that fulfilling the
rigors of a college program, while meeting the emotional needs of herself
and family, would have been difficult, if not impossible for most
individuals, and particularly challenging for someone who was barely 23
years.

4.  Although her situation may not specifically meet the criteria for
dependency or hardship as outlined in Army Regulation 635-200, it was
clearly not the willful conduct that disenrollment for indifferent attitude
or lack of interest implies.  Considering the emotional trauma the
applicant experienced, and the likelihood that her parents and any other
remaining family members relied on her, at least in an emotional sense, it
would be appropriate, and in the interest equity and compassion, to correct
her records to show that she was disenrolled as a result of personal
hardship rather than for indifferent attitude or lack of interest.

5.  Additionally, as a result of the reason for her disenrollment she
should not be ordered to repay her debt to the government comprised of
advanced education assistance received in the form of scholarship benefits.

6.  The applicant noted in her application that she was made aware of the
debt from a review of her credit report.  Because correction of her record
will in fact void her debt to the Government, officials at the Department
of Defense Finance and Accounting Services should notify appropriate credit
bureaus to correct negative comments/entries, which may have resulted from
the applicant’s ROTC debt maintained by those agencies.

BOARD VOTE:

___JV___  ___JA___  ___LS __  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION








BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant
a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all
Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected:

      a.  by showing that she was disenrolled from the ROTC program as a
result of personal hardship; and


      b.  by showing that she was not ordered to repay her valid debt to the
US Government comprised of advanced education assistance received in the
form of scholarship benefits; and


      c.  by having officials at the Department of Defense Finance and
Accounting Services notify appropriate credit bureaus to correct negative
comments/entries which may have resulted from the applicant’s ROTC debt.




            _____ James Vick________
                    CHAIRPERSON
INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2003098361                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040909                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |104.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]