RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           3 February 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040002759


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Melvin H. Meyer               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Linda M. Barker               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Larry J. Olson                |     |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 that his active duty service satisfy his Reserve
Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) Troop Program Unit (TPU) service
obligation.

2.  The applicant defers to counsel.

3.  The applicant provides an extract from Title 10, section 2107a; his DA
Form 597-3 (Army Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) Scholarship
Cadet Contract) and his DA Form 597-3A (Addendum to Army Senior Reserve
Officers' Training Corps Scholarship Cadet Contract); his ROTC Cadet
Command Form 203-R (Guaranteed Reserve Forces Duty (GRFD) Scholarship/DASE-
COOP Cadet Contract Endorsement); an extract from Cadet Command Regulation
 145-10; an ROTC Cadet Command Form 204-R (Revocation of the Guaranteed
Reserve Forces Duty (GRFD) Cadet Contract Endorsement) dated 26 May  2000;
a memorandum from Headquarters, U. S Army Cadet Command dated   28 August
2000; a letter to the Board dated 26 January 2001; a letter of support
dated 1 February 2001; a letter from the Office of the Deputy Chief of
Staff for Personnel to his Representative in Congress dated 27 October
2000; and an advisory opinion dated 28 March 2001.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel states that the applicant sought and was afforded active duty
service. Unfortunately, around that time the Army attempted to abruptly
change a longstanding policy which, had the change been implemented, would
have disregarded active duty service, including combat, as sufficient to
meet ROTC service obligations.

2.  Counsel states that the applicant enrolled in the GRFD program on
        30 September 1999.  Before and at the time of his enrollment, as
well as during his participation in the program, the applicant was informed
by his ROTC cadre that, prior to commissioning, cadets were routinely
permitted to seek, and were routinely granted, revocation of the GRFD
contract in order to permit them to serve on active duty in fulfillment of
their service obligation.  The ability to serve on active duty upon
commissioning was essential to the applicant's decision to enter the
program.

3.  Counsel states that the applicant was informed in January 2001 that
Cadet Command had issued a memorandum abrogating the contractual commitment
to permit revocation of the GRFD endorsement permitting fulfillment of the
GRFD service obligation through active duty service.  In early 2001, the
applicant submitted a related application to this Board.  Before it could
be processed, Cadet Command reversed its newly-adopted position.
Consequently, the applicant was ordered to active duty and his previous
application was withdrawn as moot.  However, in an advisory opinion dated
28 March 2001, the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel opined
that the applicant could satisfy his TPU service obligation by three
methods:

      a.  apply to this Board to have his records reflect satisfaction of
the TPU service obligation through active duty service (the action now
being taken);

      b.  serve an additional eight years in a TPU after completing active
duty service; or

      c.  reimburse the government for ROTC scholarship costs.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard (ARNG) on 9 April
1997.  He enrolled in ROTC at Cedarville College (in partnership with
Central State University) and his DA Form 597-3 is dated 30 September 1999.


2.  Paragraph 3d of the applicant's DA Form 597-3 stated that, upon
completion of all requirements for appointment he agreed to serve on active
duty as a commissioned officer based on the needs of the Army followed by
service in the Reserve components until the remainder of his 8-year
contractual military service obligation had been served.  Paragraph 4
stated that he understood that he could apply for a Reserve Component
appointment and request service on active duty or service with a Reserve
Component unit at his discretion.

3.  On 30 September 1999, the applicant also signed an ROTC Cadet Command
Form 203-R.  Paragraph 2 of the form stated that the endorsement became a
part of the DA Form 597-3.  Paragraph 2 stated that the Secretary of the
Army agreed that under present circumstances his service on active duty
would not be required upon completion of his degree requirements and
successful completion of Senior ROTC.  Paragraph 5 stated that, upon
completion of the Senior ROTC program and receipt of his degree he would be
commissioned in the U. S. Army Reserve (USAR) and, where possible, assigned
to a USAR unit or appointed in the ARNG for assignment to an ARNG unit.
Paragraph 7 stated that terms of this agreement could be modified following
either statutory change or a Secretary of the Army determination that the
needs of the service so require.

4.  On 26 May 2000, the applicant requested revocation of his GRFD contract
endorsement.  His professor of military science (PMS) recommended approval
and, on 4 April 2001, the Cadet Command Region Representative approved the
revocation.

5.  By memorandum dated 28 August 2000, Headquarters, U. S. Army Cadet
Command had stated that, effective immediately, cadets contracted under the
GRFD Scholarship Cadet Contract Endorsement could not request revocation of
the endorsement and compete for active duty, citing that the policy was
inconsistent with Title 10, U. S. Code, section 2107a.

6.  The applicant was appointed a second lieutenant in the USAR on 9 July
2001 and entered active duty for 4 years on 14 July 2001.

7.  In the applicant's previous application to the Board (withdrawn on 26
July 2001, apparently because the applicant had been accepted for active
duty), the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel noted that
they would seek legislation to amend Title 10, U. S. Code, section 2107a to
permit individuals who are appointed under this provision to satisfy their
service obligation through either active duty service or service in a TPU.
In the absence of legislative change or while the law was pending,
scholarship cadets appointed under the provisions of Title 10, U. S. Code,
section 2107a who signed a GRFD Scholarship Cadet Contract Endorsement
prior to 12 July 2000 could satisfy their GRFD commitments through one of
three options [outlined by counsel above].

8.  Cadet Command Regulation 145-10 (Guaranteed Reserve Forces Duty (GRFD)
Program) provides guidance, procedures, and responsibilities for
implementing the GRFD program.  It states that the GRFD program allows the
cadet to make a statement of early individual preference for Reserve Forces
Duty.  Use of this program will ensure that the Army ROTC program continues
to meet its active duty Army requirements while providing officers to the
Reserve Component officer leadership.

9.  Title 10, U. S. Code, section 2107a (as of 23 January 2000) stated, in
part, that a member of the [GRFD] program was eligible for appointment as a
cadet if the member, in part, agreed in writing that he or she would serve
in a TPU for not less than 8 years.  A limited amendment of the section was
made in Fiscal Year 2002.  Section 2107a(3) was added which allowed, in the
case of a cadet at a military junior college, modification of the agreement
to reduce or eliminate the TPU service obligation and to establish, in lieu
of that obligation, an active duty service obligation.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There appears to be both a government error (by informing the applicant
he could satisfy his service obligation through active duty) and an issue
of equity (by previously allowing cadets to revoke their GRFD agreement so
they could serve their obligation on active duty) in this case.

2.  On 26 May 2000, the applicant requested revocation of his GRFD contract
endorsement, his PMS recommended approval and, in April 2001, the Cadet
Command Region Representative approved the revocation.  However, by
memorandum dated 28 August 2000 Headquarters, U. S. Army Cadet Command had
stated that, effective immediately, cadets contracted under the GRFD
Scholarship Cadet Contract Endorsement could not request revocation of the
endorsement and compete for active duty, citing that the policy was
inconsistent with Title 10, U. S. Code, section 2107a.

3.  The applicant subsequently entered active duty.  Although the statute
has since been amended, it is not clear that the change would apply to the
applicant (it does not appear his school was a military junior college).
Nevertheless, the circumstances of his case clearly make his alternatives
of serving an additional eight years in a TPU after completing active duty
service or reimbursing the government for ROTC scholarship costs
inequitable.

4.  It would be equitable to correct the applicant's records to show he
never signed the ROTC Cadet Command Form 203-R (Guaranteed Reserve Forces
Duty (GRFD) Scholarship/DASE-COOP Cadet Contract Endorsement), thereby
keeping his DA Form 597-3 (Army Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps
(ROTC) Scholarship Cadet Contract) in effect, which allowed him to serve on
active duty as a commissioned officer based on the needs of the Army
followed by service in the Reserve Components until the remainder of his 8-
year contractual military service obligation had been served.

BOARD VOTE:

__mhm___  __lmb___  __ljo___  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 by
showing that he did not sign an ROTC Cadet Command Form 203-R on
30 September 1999.




            __Melvin H. Meyer____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040002759                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050203                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schneider                           |
|ISSUES         1.       |104.03                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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