RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


           IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        8 November 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040010316

      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. Prevolia A. Harper            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Stanley Kelley                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Diane J. Armstrong            |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Delia R. Trimble              |     |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 Reserve Officers' Training
Corps (ROTC) debt be waived.

2.  The applicant states that she currently has a debt with the U.S.
Department of Treasury because of an Army ROTC scholarship that she
received while in Army ROTC.  The applicant further explains that she
received approximately $12,000 for her last two years of school and that
she actively participated in Army ROTC for over four years.

3.  The applicant further explains that she incurred a debt obligation as a
result of not being allowed to attend basic camp.  The applicant argues
that she was given improper information about the disenrollment process.

4.  The applicant provides numerous self-authored letters to the Defense
Finance and Accounting Service, the U.S. Army Cadet Command and the Army
Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Support Division, St. Louis, Missouri.

5.  The applicant also provides:

      a.  A copy of a memorandum from the First ROTC Region, dated 13 July
1999.

      b.  A Cadet Action Request.

      c.  First Region ROTC Order Number 3-05, dated 1 May 2000.

      d.  A memorandum from the U. S. Army Cadet Command, dated 19 November
1999.

      e.  Multiple Body Fat Content Worksheets (Female).

      f.  Various letters written to the Defense Finance and Accounting
Service, ARBA Support Division, St. Louis, Missouri, and the Deputy Chief
of Staff for Personnel (Pentagon).







CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an injustice which occurred
on          18 April 1997.  The application submitted in this case is dated
12 June 2003.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  Records show the applicant submitted a previous request to the ABCMR
for consideration.  However, her request was returned because her records
could not be located at that time.

4.  The applicant’s record contains a letter from the DOD Medical
Examination Review Board (DODMERB), dated 16 October 1997.  This letter
informed the applicant that her medical examination had been evaluated and
she was advised that she was medically disqualified from an Army ROTC
scholarship for exceeding the established body fat standards.

5.  The DODMERB letter also advised the applicant of the process for
submitting a waiver and the rebuttal process for exceeding body fat
standards.  She was also advised that the most effective method to lower
body fat percentage was through weight loss and exercise.  The rebuttal
instructions also emphasized that the applicant would only be reevaluated
once and that she was to be certain that she was within body fat standards
upon submission of her request.

6.  The applicant’s record does not contain information regarding a waiver
approval.  However, it appears the applicant submitted a request for
reconsideration of her initial denial.  She was granted a waiver and on 21
August 1997, the applicant signed a DA Form 597-3 (Army Senior Reserve
Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) Scholarship Cadet Contract) to accept a 2-
year ROTC scholarship.

7.  A DA Form 5501-R (Body Fat Content Worksheet-Female), dated 16 April
1999 shows the applicant’s actual body fat was 37.2 percent (the maximum
allowable body fat content was 32 percent.  Additional forms show the
applicant was not in compliance with body fat standards for the period
April through July 1999.

8.  On 13 July 1999, the applicant’s Professor of Military Science (PMS)
recommended that she be disenrolled from the Army ROTC program.  He stated
that he strongly approved of the disenrollment and based his reasoning on
the fact that the applicant was unable to meet body fat standards in
accordance with Army Regulation 600-9.

9.  The PMS further stated the applicant was tape-tested several times
throughout the 1998-1999 academic year, and although she made moderate
progress, she never met the required standard.  He also noted the
applicant’s final tape test 5 days prior to Advanced Camp, in which results
showed that her body fat results were 2.56 over the maximum standard.

10.  On 19 November 1999, the applicant was notified by memorandum from the
commanding general at the U.S. Army Cadet Command that she was being
disenrolled from the Army ROTC Program under provisions of Army Regulation
145-1 based on her failure to meet the requirements of the Army Weight
Control Program prior to the last school term of the MSIII year.  She was
also advised that her obligation could be satisfied through an order to
active duty or to repay the funds spent in support of her education.

11.  Orders Number 3-05, First Region ROTC Instructor Group, Senior
Division, University of South Carolina, show the applicant was disenrolled
with an effective date of 13 April 2000.

12.  In the processing of this case, Headquarters, U.S. Army Cadet Command
(USACC), Fort Monroe, Virginia.  The advisory opinion indicates that
the terms of the applicant’s contract required her to either repay the debt
monetarily or be ordered to active duty through ROTC.  The advisory opinion
further stated that the 13 April 2000 memorandum stated that these options
were offered to the applicant after she was disenrolled, but attempts were
unsuccessful.  Subsequently, the Cadet Command established a debt with the
Defense Finance and Accounting Service-Denver.

13.  The advisory opinion also noted that a 19 November 1999 disenrollment
memorandum included an addendum.  The cadet command opinion recommended
that the applicant be required to reimburse the Government for her advanced
education because she failed to meet minimum standards which constituted a
breach of the terms of her ROTC contract.

14.  A copy of the advisory opinion was referred to the applicant for
comment or rebuttal.  The applicant responded to the advisory opinion and
submitted a rebuttal in which she stated, in part, that she never received
the addendum and that it went to her mother’s old address in Allentown,
Pennsylvania.  The applicant further stated that she went to Fort Jackson,
South Carolina several times for tape tests and was aware that she did not
meet the height and weight standards and was under the impression that she
was still eligible for a waiver.  The applicant noted that she did not meet
the weight standard when she was offered the scholarship.  The applicant
further stated that she first learned of her disenrollment in the summer of
1999 when she was denied the opportunity to go to advance camp.

15.  The applicant further explained in her rebuttal that when she was
presented with Cadet Acknowledgement Form, she was told she did not need a
board of officers because this option was for cadets who wanted to fight
and attend court in Washington, D.C. and she would be responsible for all
expenses which she could not afford.  She argued that she was told that she
needed to decline active duty because she did not meet the eligibility
requirements for active duty.  The applicant further argued that she was
misled about being eligible the whole time she was in ROTC and was a
dedicated cadet who participated in every event.

16.  The applicant provided copies of several letters that she has written
to various agencies explaining her situation.  In an undated letter, the
applicant wrote to the cadet commander and stated, in part, she was
requesting forgiveness of her loan.  She explained in the letter that she
was not an obese cadet, but had a muscular build to that of a male and that
she was allowed to participate in the program for 5 years.

17.  Title 10, U. S. Code, section 2005, serves as the authority for
reimbursements for advanced education assistance.  It states, in pertinent
part, that individuals who fail to complete the terms of their advanced
education assistance agreement will reimburse the United States for the
unserved portion not fulfilled.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was disenrolled from the ROTC program for failure to meet
minimum weight standards which resulted in a breach of her ROTC contract
and a debt was assessed against her for repayment of ROTC benefits she
received.

2.  While the applicant's zeal in becoming involved in the ROTC Program is
commendable, her primary responsibility was to comply with the terms of her
contract.  The contract required that she maintain weight standards.



3.  The applicant argues that she was misled about being eligible for the
ROTC program.  However, the applicant stated in her rebuttal that she went
to Fort Jackson for several tape tests and was aware that she did not meet
the weight standard.  Therefore, it should not have been unreasonable for
the applicant to realize she may be disenrolled for failing to meet weight
standards.  Additionally, the applicant’s PMS stated that although the
applicant made moderate progress, she never met the weight standard.

4.  The applicant stated that she did not meet the weight standards when
she was offered the ROTC scholarship.  However, records show that when
applicant was disqualified on 16 October 1997, she was given instructions
for submitting a request for reevaluation and advised that she must meet
weight standards.  It appears the applicant was successful in her rebuttal
after meeting weight standards during her rebuttal process and she was
accepted into the Army ROTC program.  However, she failed to continue to
maintain weight standards.

5.  The applicant stated that she was misled regarding her options when she
was disenrolled from the ROTC program.  However, records show that the
applicant elected to repay the debt.  Since she did not meet standards, she
was ineligible for the active duty enlistment option.

6.  The applicant has provided no compelling argument or evidence to show
that her disenrollment from ROTC was in error or unjust.  Therefore, there
is insufficient evidence to support favorable relief.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___SK __  __ DJA  _  __DRT __  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.




                                  ____ _Stanley Kelley____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040010316                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051108                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |104.0300                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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