| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | Senior Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Linda D. Simmons | Member | |
| Ms. Marla J. N. Troup | Member |
2. The applicant requests, in effect, that the basis for his 1969 “discharge” from the ROTC (Reserve Officer Training Corps) Program at the University of Arizona be corrected to show that he was discharged by reason of being a conscientious objector and not for failing to maintain requirements for enrollment.
3. The applicant states that he began looking into the basis for his discharge from the ROTC program in 1992 and contacted several military officials who were unable to assist him because his ROTC records were no longer available. He states that in 1969 he contacted his commanding officer and requested release from the ROTC program because he “could not kill and that [he] could not order a man under [his] command to kill.” He states, in effect, that although the paragraph cited as the “reason” for his discharge was correct, the narrative reason was incorrect.
4. In support of his request the applicant submits copies of documents associated with his previous attempt to resolve the issue, copies of Army Regulations in effect at the time of his discharge, copies of documents associated with his disenrollment from the ROTC Program and discharge from the United States Army Control Group (ROTC), as well as a March 1993 letter from the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel which concludes that his discharge “could only have been based on status as a conscientious objector.”
5. There were no military records available to the Board other than those documents provided by the applicant. Those document indicate that on
11 February 1969 the applicant requested “immediate discharge from the Sixth U.S. [United States] Army Control Group (ROTC). The request does not cite a reason for the applicant’s submission.
6. A 12 February 1969 letter from the Sixth U.S. Army ROTC Instructor Group Senior Division at the University of Arizona notified the applicant that he was being “discharge” effective 11 February 1969 as “a result of your failure to maintain requirements for enrollment.”
7. A 12 February 1969 Department of Defense Form 44 (Record of Military Status of Registrant) notes that the applicant was disenrolled from the ROTC program under the provisions of paragraph 2-23a(5), of Army Regulation 145-(unreadable) for “failure to maintain requirements for enrollment.”
8. Orders published on 19 February 1969 “discharged” the applicant from the Sixth US Army Control Group (ROTC) effective 11 February 1969 and cited the reason for discharge as “disenrolled from ROTC program, para 3-25a(5), AR [Army Regulation] 145-1.”
9. As part of the applicant’s attempt to resolve the basis for his 1969 discharge from the ROTC program, the applicant was provided extracts from various regulations which were in effect at the time of his discharge; including an extract from Army Regulation 145-1. While the extract was dated 2 July 1971, information contained in the 1993 letter from the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel confirmed that the 1971 version of Army Regulation 145-1 was also in effect in 1969.
10. The letter from the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel also notes that the applicant’s “disenrollment under the provisions of paragraph 3-25a(5), AR 145-1 could only have been based on status as a conscientious objector.”
11. Army Regulation 145-1, dated 2 July 1971, does not contain a paragraph 2-23a(5) as cited on the applicant’s Department of Defense Form 44 and paragraph 2-25a(5) does pertain to conscientious objectors. Failure to maintain requirements for enrollment would have been cited as paragraph 2-25a(6).
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Although the applicant’s ROTC records no longer exist, the Board is satisfied that the evidence does support a conclusion that the applicant was disenrolled and discharged from the ROTC program under the provision of paragraph 2-25a(5) of Army Regulation 145-1. The entry of paragraph 2-23a(5) on his Department of Defense Form 44 appears to have been a typographical error in view of the fact that Army Regulation 145-1 does not contain a paragraph 2-23a(5).
2. If the applicant had not been maintaining requirements for enrollment in the ROTC program there would have been no reason for him to submit a request for discharge. The action could have been accomplished without his consent. However, the fact that the applicant did submit such a request, and the fact that his separation documents consistently cited a subparagraph (5) and not subparagraph (6) further supports a conclusion that his separation was the result of his conscientious objector status and not his failure to maintain requirements for enrollment.
3. In view of the foregoing, the Board is satisfied that the basis for the applicant’s release from the ROTC program was under the provisions of paragraph 2-23a(5) of Army Regulation 145-1 as a result of his conscientious objector status. It would be appropriate, and in the interest of justice and equity, to correct his records accordingly by amending his discharge orders and his Department of Defense Form 44.
4. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by amending the 1969 discharge orders and his 1969 Department of Defense Form 44 to show that the reason for his disenrollment and subsequent discharge from the ROTC program was based on his status as a conscientious objector vice as a result of failing to maintain requirements for enrollment.
BOARD VOTE:
__RJW __ __LDS__ __MJNT_ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
___Raymond J. Wagner_____
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2003087241 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20031028 |
| 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. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002529
The applicant provides a list of 64 exhibits including: * a 12-page statement describing the circumstances beginning with his application to enter the ROTC program to his disenrollment from the ROTC program at RIT * DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document) * two incomplete DA Forms 597-3 (Army Senior ROTC Scholarship Cadet Contract) * APFT results * counseling statements * DOD IG document * documents from two court cases * LTC PTH's sworn statement CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. ROTC...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130016413
She was ordered to active duty for a period of 400 days in support of OEF on 2 January 2013. As a result of her disenrollment, the applicant incurred an ROTC scholarship debt of $22,257.00, which she acknowledged was correct and valid. The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant declined to be expeditiously called to active duty upon disenrollment from the ROTC program in lieu being required to repay scholarship benefits.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000314
The applicant further acknowledged that she understood that her active duty would be contingent on the disenrollment proceedings and that if she were eligible to serve on active duty, the Cadet Command would approve her action, based on her request, ordering her to active duty as a private (PV1)/E-1 in the active Army for a period of 3 years. The evidence of record also shows that the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army some 2 years after her disenrollment from the ROTC program for the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022388
By signing the DA Form 597-3, he agreed that: a. he would incur an active duty and/or reimbursement obligation after the first day of his Military Science (MS) II year (sophomore year); b. once he became obligated, if he were to be disenrolled from the ROTC Program for breach of contractual terms or any other disenrollment criteria established then or in the future by Army regulations (including, but not limited to, Army Regulation 145-1 (Senior ROTC Program: Organization, Administration,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010832
A scholarship cadet may be disenrolled only by the Commanding General, U.S. Army ROTC Cadet Command. Army ROTC cadets are required to serve as SMP cadets when participating as non-scholarship ARNG member/U.S. As required by applicable regulation, the effective date of rank is the date the applicant was notified of his disenrollment from the SMP, which was 13 August 2007.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000115
b. Paragraph 5-6, Army Regulation 135-178, provides for discharge of a member disenrolled from ROTC/SMP. The CAARNG did not acknowledge his NGB Form 22A, dated 27 June 2006, which corrected his discharge date to 3 October 2005. Refer to Army Regulation 135-178 (Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 12 (15) for discharge for Soldiers medically unfit for retention per Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness).
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062518C070421
Counsel states that the applicant heard nothing further from his ROTC unit or the United States Army until 15 October 1991 when, without further notice, hearing or counsel, he was presented with amended findings and amended recommendations from the disenrollment board which concluded that the applicant should be disenrolled from the ROTC program for other than willful evasion or voluntary breach of the terms of his ROTC contract. He was still enrolled at Pennsylvania State, was taking less...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130016946
His DA Form 597-3 (Army Senior ROTC Scholarship Cadet Contact) states: a. in paragraph 5a, the Secretary of the Army or his or her designee may order him to active duty as an enlisted Soldier, if qualified, for a period of not more than 4 years if he failed to complete the ROTC program; b. in paragraph 5b, that if offered the opportunity to repay his advanced educational assistance in lieu of being ordered to active duty, he will be required to reimburse the U.S. Government through repayment...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150004093
His service record includes his U.S. Army Advanced Education Financial Assistance Record as of 17 January 2012, which shows the applicant received Army ROTC Scholarship benefits in the amount of $14,826.15. He was advised that if he was a scholarship cadet, he could be called to enlisted active duty in an enlisted grade of E-1 or required to repay scholarship benefits in the amount of approximately $14,826.15 in lieu of a call to active duty fulfillment of his contractual obligation. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130002753
She was also notified that as a scholarship cadet, if the disenrollment were approved, she could be called to active duty in an enlisted grade of E-1 or be required to repay scholarship benefits in the amount of $62,545.00 in lieu of being called to active duty in fulfillment of her contractual obligations. The board recommended she should: * not be retained in the ROTC Program as a scholarship cadet * not be retained in the ROTC Program as a nonscholarship cadet * be disenrolled from the...