RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            11 August 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20040009544


      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. John N. Slone                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Deborah S. Jacobs             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Michael J. Flynn              |     |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 her active duty service obligation (ADSO) be
changed from 10 August 2007 to the summer of 2005.

2.  The applicant states she feels she was misled into believing her
obligation would end in 2005 and now she is told she actually owes until
2007.  She originally came on active duty the summer of 2000 with a 4-year
commitment due to her ROTC (Reserve Officers' Training Corps) scholarship.
She applied to the Army Dietetic Internship in 2002.  It was explained to
her she would be taken off active duty and brought back on active duty the
next day.

3.  The applicant stated she needed to re-sign an application for active
duty for the new program.  At first, the pre-typed DA Form 160-R
(Application for Active Duty) combined the rest of her ROTC commitment and
the new 3-year commitment the internship would bring.  She specifically
told her recruiter that she would not apply to the internship if it meant a
consecutive commitment and did not sign.  Later, her recruiter gave her a
new DA Form 160-R that reflected   3 years.  She asked what her commitment
was and the recruiter stated they would see once her orders came.  She
signed the application for active duty agreeing she would incur a 3-year
obligation.  She was later notified she was accepted to the Internship and
her orders stated her commitment was 3 years from that date (date of
acceptance).  She decided to accept.

4.  The applicant states during the internship she was updating her Officer
Record Brief (ORB) and noticed her ADSO still reflected 2004.  She had it
changed [to 2005], but when she received her new ORB it said she was
obligated until 2007.  While she understands now that her obligation should
have reflected a total of 7 years, that was not what she signed for.  She
gave full disclosure about her military history in a Standard Form 180
(Request Pertaining to Military Records).  In addition, her DA Form 61
(Application for Appointment) reflected that her source of commission was
ROTC.  Since she was only a first lieutenant, it could have been presumed
she still had an ROTC ADSO.

5.  The applicant states two other individuals who had completed ROTC and
were accepted into the Internship program signed for 7 years on their
application for active duty and a 7-year obligation was reflected on their
orders.

6.  The applicant provides an Inspector General's Report of Investigation.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's DA Form 61 shows she enlisted in the ARNG on 1 June
1994 and served in the ARNG in an enlisted status until 31 August 1995.
She signed a DA Form 597-3 (Army Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps
(ROTC) Scholarship Cadet Contract) on 31 August 1995.  She received an
early commission in the U. S Army Reserve (USAR) on 17 May 1997 and was
attached to the ROTC battalion at Weber State University with an
anticipated graduation date of May 1999 (she apparently graduated in May
2000).  She was accepted for appointment in the ARNG on 23 October 1997.
Her initial appointment orders, both in the USAR and the ARNG, are not
currently filed in her Official Military Personnel File.

2.  On 30 June 2000, the applicant was separated from the ARNG and
transferred to the USAR.  On 10 August 2000, she entered active duty as an
Adjutant General’s Corps officer for her 4-year active duty commitment.

3.  On 31 December 2000, the applicant completed a Standard Form 180 in
which she requested a copy of "all information to include:  Records of
service time, promotion orders, appointment letters and all efficiency
reports, officer and enlisted.  She also requested a completed service
record or microfiche..." be sent to the U. S. Army Recruiting Command
(USAREC), Health Care Recruiting Team.

4.  On 13 February 2002, the applicant interviewed for a USAR commission in
the Army Medical Specialist Corps with concurrent call to active duty.  The
Health Care Recruiter Interview memorandum, dated 23 February 2002, noted
the applicant was 17 years old when she joined the Army and had been on
active duty since August 2000.  The memorandum also noted the applicant
planned on making the Army a career and she hoped to take advantage of the
Long-Term Education Programs the Specialist Corps offered.  She and her
husband, an Infantry officer, looked forward to the rest of their careers
and rearing their family in the military.

5.  The applicant signed a DA Form 160-R, with a typed-in date of 26
February 2002, indicating she volunteered to enter on active duty for a
period of 3 years.  (The DA Form 160-R of one of the other individuals
mentioned by the applicant reflects a period of 7 years.)

6.  On 27 February 2002, the applicant completed a DA Form 61.  She
indicated in item 29 the source of her commission was ROTC.  She indicated
in item 27
that she was commissioned on 3 July 2000.  The signature on the form is
written by hand.

7.  U.S. Total Army Personnel Command [St. Louis, Missouri] Orders
A-05-291954, dated 3 May 2002, ordered the applicant to active duty for the
purpose of attending a 9-month U. S. Army Dietetic Internship Program.  The
orders indicate she had a 3-year active duty commitment.  (The orders of
the one individual mentioned by the applicant reflects a period of 84
months which included a 2-year ROTC scholarship ADSO.)

8.  The applicant's ORB, dated 30 January 2003 (while she was still in the
Internship Program), indicated her current service agreement would expire
on
8 August 2004.  Her ORB, dated 19 October 2004, indicated her current
service agreement would expire on 10 August 2007.  Section III of the ORB
indicates the source of original appointment and in the applicant's case
the ORB indicates the source of her original appointment as ROTC and she
had entered active duty in the summer of 2002.

9.  Around February 2004, the applicant alleged her Army Medical Department
recruiter improperly informed her of her ADSO.  An investigating officer
(IO) was appointed on 9 February 2004.  When the IO contacted the
applicant's recruiter, he stated he remembered the applicant but could not
remember if he told the applicant her ADSO would be concurrent [with her
ROTC ADSO] and could not remember if she told him she did not want any
extra time with her ROTC obligation.

10.  The IO found that applicant's allegation could not be substantiated
(not that it was unsubstantiated).  The IO noted the only documents
alluding to any ROTC ADSO were her ORB and her DA Form 61.  The IO also
noted the Standard Form 180 had clearly requested all documentation on the
applicant.

11.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from
the Health Services Directorate, USAREC.  That office found the applicant's
ADSO of 10 Aug 2007 to be correct.  That office stated her original
internship board application packet is no longer available but it appears
information on her ROTC obligation was not provided to that office;
therefore, her prior service obligation was not calculated into her total
ADSO and not reflected on her orders into the internship program.

12.  A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for
comment or rebuttal.  In her rebuttal she stated she signed for 3 years and
her orders stated
3 years.  She believes her ADSO should reflect that written contract and
her
ADSO should end in the summer of 2005.  Despite the fact her ROTC contract
may not have been included with her packet she gave full disclosure about
her military history in other forms that were included in the packet.  Her
recruiter was fully aware of her ROTC obligation and that she was not
interested in extending her commitment beyond 2005.

13.  The applicant also stated Army Regulation 614-100 states acceptance of
a new appointment will negate the original, so once she was reappointed to
active duty her orders should have been all encompassing.  Also, by summer
2005 her 8-year statutory service obligation will have ended.  She will
have finished           5 years active duty which would complete her ROTC
contractual obligation and her 3-year contractual obligation incurred by
the Dietetic Internship in accordance with the agreement she signed.

14.  As additional evidence, the applicant provided an extract from Army
Regulation 614-100 in addition to several documents already provided with
her application for correction of military records.

15.  Army Regulation 351-3 (Professional Education and Training Programs of
the Army Medical Department), paragraph 10-2 states that no portion of a
prior obligation arising out of the expenditure of Government funds for
education or training purposes may be satisfied during any period of long-
term health-related education or training.  Paragraph 10-2 (Payback of an
ADO under this chapter), subparagraph 10-2c states no portion of an ADO may
be satisfied (1) by prior military service; (2) during any period of long-
term health or health-related education or training; and (3) concurrently
with any other ADO or with an obligation incurred for Department of Defense
subsidized pre-professional (undergraduate) education or training or prior
long term or health-related education or training.

16.  Army Regulation 351-3, paragraph 10-1d defines long-term health or
health-related education or training as full-time, Department of Defense
subsidized health or health-related education or training in a military or
civilian facility of 26 weeks or more.

17.  Army Regulation 351-3, paragraph 10-2g states that officers must
reimburse the United States for costs of advanced education for taking part
in the
fully-funded long-term civilian training program if they voluntarily fail
to complete the appropriate ADO set forth in this regulation and in their
training agreement.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends she was misled into believing her ADSO for the
Army Dietetic Internship would end in 2005 and she specifically told her
recruiter she would not apply for the Internship if it meant a consecutive
commitment.  She contends she only signed when her recruiter later gave her
a new DA Form    160-R that indicated a 3-year obligation.

2.  USAREC contended, during the IG investigation and in the advisory
opinion, they did not realize the applicant had a previous ROTC obligation.
 That contention is not entirely credible.  The applicant indicated on her
DA Form       61 that she was commissioned out of ROTC.  In her initial
application for the Internship she had requested all her records be sent to
USAREC.  Presumably, for her 2002 application, USAREC would have again
requested all her records.  Even if her initial appointment orders were not
on her Official Military Personnel File at that time, USAREC should have
known to ask for them.  USAREC knew she was currently on active duty.
Presumably, USAREC would have wanted to review her active duty records, to
include her ORB.  Her ORB clearly indicated she was commissioned out of
ROTC, that she entered active duty in the summer of 2002, and that she had
an ADSO until August 2004.

3.  It is not reasonable to presume the applicant would have known the 3-
year Internship obligation would have been added to her August 2004 ROTC
ADSO.  Both her recruiter and her orders stated she would have a 3-year
ADSO; therefore, it is reasonable to presume the applicant believed her
obligation was only for a total of 3 years [from 2002].

4.  While the Board recognizes the Army is not liable for the erroneous
actions of its officers, agents, or employees, even though committed in the
performance of their duties, the Army had the applicant sign an agreement
that she would remain on active duty for 3 years.  Her active duty orders
reflected she would have a     3-year ADSO effective around August 2002.
The Board believes it would be in the interest of justice and equity to
reasonably grant the relief requested.  An adjustment of her ADSO to 10
August 2005 would not be practical at this point in time.  However,
correcting her records to show her ADSO as 10 October 2005 would allow her
and the Army the necessary processing time should she actually desire to
separate on her ADSO.

5.  Since the Army by written contract indicated the applicant's ADSO would
be   3 years, it would not be equitable to consider requiring her to
reimburse the Government for the expenses incurred in accepting her into
the Dietetic Internship Program.

BOARD VOTE:

__jhs___  __dsj___  __mjf___  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
adjusting her active duty service obligation to 10 October 2005.




            ___John N. Slone______
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040009544                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050811                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schneider                           |
|ISSUES         1.       |102.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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