RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           26 April 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20040004852


      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. Karen A. Heinz                |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Lawrence Foster               |     |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 she be released from her Reserve Officers'
Training Corps (ROTC) debt obligation.

2.  The applicant states that, when she was a freshman, she agreed to incur
a large debt for tuition, room, and board after ROTC officers and a
recruiter induced her to join ROTC by assuring her that the ROTC would pay
the debt.  However, after she joined ROTC, other ROTC officers modified the
terms of their agreement and indicated they would not pay all of the debt.
She is about to graduate college and that debt is about to come due.

3.  The applicant states that the ROTC program recruiter told her that at
the end of her sophomore year she could choose either to go into the
reserves or do active duty.  At the end of her sophomore year, she advised
her commanders that she had elected to choose the reserves.  However, at
that time she also sought a transfer to the University of Oregon due to a
family emergency.  The Santa Clara cadre told her that she could transfer
to a reserve unit in Oregon and continue the program there.  After she
moved, however, the head of the University of Oregon ROTC program advised
her that Santa Clara had made       a mistake.  Because her ROTC
scholarship was a 3-year and not a 2-year or      4-year scholarship she
could not join the reserves and it would be necessary for her to do active
military service.

4.  The applicant states that she was very upset.  She consequently told
the ROTC officers that she wished to withdraw from the ROTC program.
Colonel E___ at the University of Oregon then advised her that his
superiors had decided that those cadets to which the ROTC had provided
incorrect information would be allowed to avoid the current regulations,
which meant she could either serve in the reserves or could withdraw from
ROTC.  If she could prove she had been given wrong information, she would
be released from her debt.  Colonel W___ at Santa Clara, however, disagreed
with Colonel E___'s assurances.  Eventually, Colonel W___ retracted part of
her disagreement, telling the applicant she would still have the option of
going into the reserves.  However, Colonel W___ said now she would not have
her room and board paid for as agreed.  The applicant now harbored serious
doubts concerning the good faith and credibility of [the Army] and decided
that she still wished to withdraw from the program.

5.  The applicant states that hers was not an isolated problem.  ROTC
recruiters have given wrong information to others.

6.  The applicant provides a letter from a former Santa Clara University
ROTC cadet.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 17 September 2001, the applicant signed a DA Form 597-3 (Army Senior
ROTC Scholarship Cadet Contract) enrolling in the ROTC program at Santa
Clara University, Santa Clara, CA.  The preamble to the contract states, in
part, "…Entry into this program is a serious commitment…If there are any
doubts about the prospective cadet's ability or determination to fulfill
the terms of this contract, then this contract should not be executed.

2.  Paragraph 1c of the applicant's DA Form 597-3 indicated that she agreed
to remain a full-time student at the educational institution named above
(i.e., Santa Clara University) until she received her degree.  Paragraph 1d
indicated that she understood she had to obtain prior written approval from
the Professor of Military Science (PMS) if she desired to transfer to
another institution.

3.  Paragraph 2g of the applicant's DA Form 597-3 indicated that she
understood and agreed that if she was a 3-, 4-, or 5-year scholarship
recipient, that she could not voluntarily withdraw from the scholarship
program without incurring an active duty and/or reimbursement obligation.

4.  Paragraph 3a of the applicant's DA Form 597-3 indicated that she
agreed, upon completion of all requirements for appointment, to apply for
and accept an appointment, if offered, as a commissioned officer in either
the U. S. Army Reserve or the Army National Guard of the United States.

5.  Paragraph 3d of the applicant's DA Form 597-3 indicated that she agreed
to serve on active duty as a commissioned officer in the U. S. Army as
prescribed by relevant Army regulations based on the needs of the Army,
followed by service in the Reserve Components until the remainder of her 8-
year contractual military service obligation had been served.

6.  Paragraph 4 of the applicant's DA Form 597-3 indicated that she
understood she could apply for a Reserve Component appointment and request
service on active duty or service with a Reserve Component unit at her
discretion.  However, her selection for the appointment and service would
be determined according to the needs of the Army at the time her requested
appointment was considered.

7.  Paragraph 7d of the applicant's DA Form 597-3 indicated that she
understood that if she were disenrolled from the ROTC Program for failing
to comply with the terms and conditions of the contract, the Secretary of
the Army could order her to reimburse the United States through repayment
of an amount of money, plus interest, equal to the entire amount of
financial assistance paid by the United States for her advanced education
from the commencement of the contractual agreement to the date of her
disenrollment or refusal to accept a commission.  Or, she could be ordered
to active duty for not more than four years.

8.  Around December 2002, the applicant was disenrolled from ROTC for
breach of contract for withdrawing from Santa Clara University.

9.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from
the     Office of Personnel and Administration, U. S. Army Cadet Command.
That office recommended disapproval of the applicant's request.  It stated
the applicant was given every opportunity to make a successful transfer
into the University of Oregon's ROTC program.  That office provided email
traffic which indicated the Commanding General was willing to approve a 3-
year Guaranteed Reserve Forces Duty (GRFD) scholarship contract as an
exception to policy to allow her to continue in the ROTC program and
commission when qualified.  However, the applicant contacted the PMS at
Santa Clara University and stated she no longer desired to continue with
her ROTC obligation.

10.  The Office of Personnel and Administration, U. S. Army Cadet Command
provided a 5 August 2002 email from the applicant's PMS at Santa Clara
University who stated that they basically told her that she would have to
contact Oregon about scholarship opportunities there.  They (Santa Clara)
could not transfer her scholarship but they would work with Oregon to make
sure that it did not look to Cadet Command that she was leaving the
program.  The PMS stated that any talk of a GRFD would have been in the
hypothetical realm and would have clearly pointed to Oregon as the source
of that kind of scholarship.

11.  The Office of Personnel and Administration, U. S. Army Cadet Command
provided a 6 August 2002 email from the University of Oregon PMS, who
stated the applicant had indicated that her mind was made up and she wanted
to request disenrollment from ROTC because she did not think it was
possible to be guaranteed Reserve forces duty.  A 27 August 2002 email from
the University of Oregon PMS indicated the applicant was adamant about
wanting to disenroll.

12.  The Office of Personnel and Administration, U. S. Army Cadet Command
provided a 10 September 2002 email from the executive officer, Santa Clara
University ROTC which indicated the applicant called the Santa Clara
University PMS on 9 September 2002 and stated she had no interest in
remaining with the ROTC program and understood that she probably would have
to pay her scholarship monies back.  The executive officer stated they had
received guidance from Cadet Command which indicated there were three
possible course of action.  One course of action was, if the University of
Oregon could offer the applicant an allocation through Brigade funding,
Santa Clara University would execute a transfer.  Once there, the applicant
could convert to a GRFD on 17 September 2002 based on a positive result of
a meeting between the Cadet Command Commanding General and the Office of
The Judge Advocate General.

13.  The Office of Personnel and Administration, U. S. Army Cadet Command
provided an email dated 10 September 2002 to the Santa Clara University PMS
which indicated that the following Tuesday the "GRFD folks" were going to
go in with a lawyer whose opinion was that it was okay to convert a 3-year
(or 3.5 year) scholarship to GRFD.  The CG would apparently make a decision
then.

14.  A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for
comment or rebuttal.  She did not respond within the given time frame.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant provides no evidence to support her contention that,
after she joined ROTC, other ROTC officers modified the terms of their
agreement and indicated that they would not pay all of the debt.

2.  The applicant agreed, by signing her ROTC scholarship contract, to
remain a full-time student at Santa Clara University until she received her
degree.  She understood, by signing her contract, that she had to obtain
prior written approval from the PMS if she desired to transfer to another
institution.  The available evidence of record shows she transferred to the
University of Oregon prior to obtaining such written approval.

3.  The applicant, by signing her ROTC scholarship contract, indicated that
she understood she could apply for a Reserve Component appointment and
request service with a Reserve Component unit at her discretion.  However,
her contract specified that her selection for the appointment and service
would be determined according to the needs of the Army at the time that her
requested appointment was considered.  The contract did not guarantee her
that she could fulfill her obligation by remaining in the Reserve.

4.  Email traffic indicated that the applicant's PMSs and the Commanding
General of U. S. Army Cadet Command were willing to consider allowing her
transfer to the University of Oregon and converting her ROTC scholarship
contract to a GRFD contract.  However, that email traffic, and her own
statements, indicate that she was unwilling to remain in ROTC even if her
conditions had been met.

5.  There is no evidence of record and the applicant provides none to show
the Army abrogated the terms of her ROTC contract.  The applicant provides
insufficient evidence to show that she did not willfully breach the terms
of her contract.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__mhm___  __kah___  __lf____  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.




            __Melvin H. Meyer_____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040004852                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050426                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |128.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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