RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        17 November 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040010779


      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. Rosa M. Chandler              |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Lester Echols                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John E. Denning               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Jeanette R. McCants           |     |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, waiver of her Senior Reserve
Officer's Training Corps (SROTC) scholarship debt.  She also requests a
personal appearance before the Army Board for Correction of Military
Records (ABCMR).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she desires the Board waive her
scholarship debt because she was disenrolled from the SROTC program based
on charges of having an indifferent attitude/lack of interest in military
training, and for having an undesirable character by cheating on an SROTC
examination.  She points out:

      a.  An Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 board of officers hearing on
17 November 2000 found that she was innocent of the cheating charge.  The
incident was totally outside of the scope of the proceedings because it had
already been resolved years earlier during her freshman year.

      b.  The US Army Cadet Command, in a 12 June 2001 decision, upheld the
allegation of cheating after the board of officers found inconclusive
evidence to support the charge she cheated on an ROTC examination.  She
challenged this, but the charge of cheating was restated in a Cadet Command
decision issued in February 2002.  These violations compound the original
error and violate her rights in the hearing process.

      c.  The available medical evidence shows she had an almost
uninterrupted series of medical appointments and physical problems that
limited her participation and attendance in SROTC classes and drills during
the November 1999 time frame.

      d.  Both the Director of Student Health Services and the Dean of
Students, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland have extensive
backgrounds in psychology.  Both testified that she had an inability to
control herself or her actions; loss of ability to address day to day
issues; inability to deal with the aspects of going to class and
performing; serious emotional problems; numerous symptoms of an underlying
mental disorder; difficulty dealing with daily obligations; problems
coping; and that she made a good faith effort to meet her responsibilities.
 Additionally, she remained on medical leave from the university for 3 full
semesters beginning in the spring of 2000 and that she received extensive
psychological treatment for more than 2 years, including 4 months of
partial hospitalization.

      e.  In December 1999 or January 2000, medical submissions were
submitted to her ROTC chain of command.  A voluntary medical disenrollment
request was submitted in October 2000, but it was never appropriately
addressed by Cadet Command.  The Cadet Command only stated that her medical
documents had been taken into consideration.

      f.  She missed drills and classes due to physical and emotional
problems, and not due to an indifferent attitude or lack of interest.  She
did not voluntarily breach the terms of her SROTC contract.

3.  The applicant provides in support of her request:

      a.  DA Form 1574 (Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer
(IO)/Board of Officers) and supporting documents.

      b.  Summary of Board Proceedings for Disenrollment from the SROTC
program and supporting documents.

      c.  Medical documents, dated between November 1997 and February 2000.

      d.  Johns Hopkins University Security Department Crime/Incident
Report, dated 13 October 1999.

      e.  Attorney's correspondence, dated between April 2000 and February
2005.

      f.  United States (US) Army Advanced Education Financial Assistance
Record, dated 13 March 2000.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests, in effect, that the Board take into consideration the
evidence that has been provided.

2.  Counsel states, in effect, evidence has been presented to specifically
address the applicant's absence from military science classes or drills in
late 1999 and early 2000.  Medical documents are provided to show that her
absences were caused by a history of medical problems, not an indifferent
attitude or lack of interest in military training.  Her absences were
caused by physical problems and they were not voluntary.  The Cadet Command
never correlated the missed
classes and drill dates against the medical evidence supplied by the
applicant.  One of the criteria used for the applicant's disenrollment was
"undesirable character demonstrated by cheating on an examination."  This
is clearly at odds with the AR 15-6 finding of 30 November 2000.

3.  Counsel provides no additional evidence.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  While attending Johns Hopkins University in September 1997, she
enrolled in the ROTC program as a 4-year scholarship student.  Between 22
December 1997 and 28 January 2000, she received $51,350.00 in educational
assistance.

2.  Because of the applicant's reported syncopal episodes, the Cadet
Command Surgeon reviewed her medical records on 22 December 1998 and
determined she was qualified to continue in the SROTC program.  There is no
evidence that the applicant requested release from ROTC.

3.  On 20 March 2000, the applicant was placed on a leave of absence from
the ROTC program pending disenrollment from SROTC.  The stated reasons for
the proposed disenrollment were her characteristics of cheating on her
military science examination and indifferent attitude or lack of interest
in the military as evidenced by frequent absences from military science
classes or drills.

4.  On 4 April 2000, the applicant was notified that action was being
initiated to disenrolled her from the SROTC program due to a breach of her
SROTC scholarship contract.  On 14 April 2000, she acknowledged
notification and requested that a board of officers be appointed to review
her case.  She also declined expeditious call to active duty.

5.  On 25 September 2000, the applicant was notified that a board of
officers would meet on 27 October 2000 to determine her suitability for
retention in the SROTC program.  The applicant requested a delay until 17
November 2000.  The delay was granted.

6.  On 17 November 2000, the board convened and the applicant appeared with
counsel.  The applicant provided a lengthy statement in which she admitted
entering into a valid SROTC contract of her own volition and receiving a
total of $51,350.00 from the Government in the form of scholarship benefits
while enrolled in the SROTC.  She also admitted filing false reports about
being trapped in an elevator and being abducted, as well as being found
guilty of an academic integrity violation during a chemistry examination in
her freshman year.

7.  The board of officers found that:

      a.  The applicant entered into a valid SROTC contract and received
$51,350.00.

      b.  The applicant displayed an inaptitude for military service by:
making false statements to cadre and school officials in order to miss
training events in February 2000; and for filing a false police report on
11 February 2000.

      c.  The applicant displayed undesirable character evidenced by a
history of academic dishonesty and discreditable incidents with university
authorities as evidenced by her transcripts (i.e., cheating on a chemistry
examination during her freshman year).  The evidence was inconclusive as to
whether she cheated on a military science examination.

      d.  The applicant failed to meet her military training requirements
for various reasons throughout her period as a cadet as required by her
SROTC contract culminating with her fabrication of incidents in order to
justify her absences at SROTC training events and academic classes.  This
was evidenced by the applicant's own personal statements, those of
witnesses, and statements of facts identified in counseling forms
administered to the applicant by ROTC cadre personnel.

8.  The board of officers recommended that the applicant:

      a.  Be disenrolled for both voluntary and involuntary breaches of her
SROTC contract, due to actions categorized as both cadet misconduct and
inability to adapt to military science.

      b.  Not be ordered to active duty because her testimony, witness
testimony, and exhibits in this case indicated she lacked the integrity
required by US Army Soldiers to serve honorably.

      c.  Be directed to repay the US Army the full sum of $51,350 which is
all of the scholarship money that she received, and that she be given no
consideration in reducing the amount.

9.  The board of officers noted in their recommendation:

      a.  The applicant indicated that she and her family had no
outstanding extraordinary circumstances that prevented them from paying the
monies back over a designated period of time; however, she requested
partial debt relief.

      b.  The applicant contended she should be granted partial relief
because she suffered from neurocardiogenic syncope which involves episodes
of fainting incidents caused when the brain does not receive enough
oxygenated blood.  The board noted, however, when this condition was
examined, the applicant signed a waiver to continue in SROTC in order to
receive scholarship funds.

      c.  It was not until the applicant was notified that a formal board
of officers would meet to determine her suitability for retention in the
ROTC program that she began to submit information regarding hypertension
and bipolar disorder in an effort to be excused from meeting her
contractual commitments and repaying her scholarship.  All medical
information was submitted to the Cadet Command Surgeon for review.

10.  On 30 November 2000, the applicant was provided the report of
proceedings, approved findings and recommendations.  She stated that she
would submit a written response and relevant rebuttal material.

11.  On 13 December 2000, the applicant's attorney provided a rebuttal on
behalf of the applicant.

12.  On 29 February 2001, the Cadet Command Surgeon, based on information
provided by the applicant, determined that she was not qualified for
retention in the SROTC program based on a 10 December 2000 psychiatric
diagnosis of factitious disorder (Munchausen Syndrome).  The Command
Surgeon also noted the diagnosing psychiatrist reported the applicant had a
history of bulimic behavior (binging and self-induced vomiting) and
intermittent episodes of suicidal thoughts since junior high school;
however, her DD Form 2492 (Report of Medical History), dated 24 September
1996, showed she denied both conditions as part of the medical
qualification for the SROTC program.  This is a failure to disclose
relevant medical information which likely, if known, would have led to a
medical disqualification for the SROTC program.

13.  On 12 June 2001, Cadet Command, Fort Monroe, Virginia, notified the
applicant that she was being disenrolled from the SROTC program under the
provisions of Army Regulation 145-1, paragraph 3-43(a)(14 and 16).
Disenrollment was based on undesirable character demonstrated by cheating
on an examination and indifferent attitude or lack of interest in military
training by frequent absences from military science class and drills.  The
applicant was also advised that she could elect to repay the Government
$51,350.00, in full; set up a repayment plan; or she could appeal/dispute
the decision.

14.  On 6 August 2001, the applicant submitted an appeal.

15.  On 4 February 2002, the Cadet Command, issued the applicant a
memorandum which stated "your notification letter of June12, 2001, in which
you were notified that your disenrollement was based on Army Regulation 145-
1, paragraph 3-43a(14) and (16) is corrected to read paragraph 3-43a(14)
and (15). Your disenrollment was based on your undesirable character, as
demonstrated by cheating on an examination, and indifferent attitude or
lack of interest in military training as evidenced by frequent absences
from military science class and drills."

16.  Further, the Cadet Command stated that "the decision to disenroll you
was based upon evidence of your misconduct, the evidence that you submitted
regarding your medical condition, the Cadet Command Surgeon's medical
review of your records, and your medical diagnosis of a "factitious
disorder."

17.  Additionally, the Cadet Command advised the applicant that her SROTC
contract had been breached, and that she was responsible for repaying the
Government $51,350.00 for advanced educational assistance.  However, a debt
had not been established in her name with the Defense Finance Accounting
Service (DFAS), Denver, because her appeal was being forwarded to the
Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (ODCSPER) at
Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) for a final decision.

18.  The Cadet Command Surgeon's review is not contained in the available
record.

19.  On 1 October 2003, the applicant was advised that on 29 September
2003, the Director of Military Personnel Policy (DMPP), ODCSPER, HQDA
ratified the validity of her SROTC scholarship debt.  The applicant was
also advised that based on the facts pertaining to her SROTC disenrollment,
the AR 15-6 report, and other matters that were submitted on her behalf,
there was sufficient evidence to support recoupment.  The DMPP concluded
that the applicant's ROTC scholarship contract was valid; that she
voluntarily breached her contract; that she received funds from the
Government in fulfillment of that contract; and that the amount owed had
been correctly calculated.  She was advised that DFAS was being notified to
pursue collection of the debt in the amount of $51,350.00.  Further, she
was advised she could apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military
Records for relief.

20.  In connection with her application, Headquarters, United States Army
Cadet Command, Fort Monroe, Virginia provided an advisory opinion that
indicates, in effect, the terms of the applicant's scholarship contract
require that a cadet either repay the scholarship debt monetarily or agree
to be ordered to active duty through SROTC program channels based on the
needs of the Army.  The applicant was offered these options.  The applicant
appealed her disenrollement and debt and the appeal was forwarded to the
Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G1 for a final determination as to the
validity of the debt.  The G1 found the debt to be valid and offered that
she be required to repay the educational expenses in the amount of
$51,350.00.  Therefore, on 9 October 2003, the DFAS was notified to
establish a debt in her name.  The applicant's decision to breach the terms
of her SROTC contract was a voluntary action.  The Cadet Command recommends
that the applicant repay the monies that she received for advanced
educational assistance.

21.  The advisory opinion was referred to the applicant for comment or
rebuttal and she responded by stating that:

      a.  The breach in the terms of her SROTC agreement was not voluntary.
A great deal of medical documentation was submitted and hearing testimony
was taken regarding her medical and emotional problems that directly
related to the time of the missed military classes and drills.

      b.  The IO found that she did not cheat on a February 2000 SROTC
examination and the Cadet Command is clearly in error on addressing this as
a reason for discharge.  She also questions whether a correction was ever
made in the records stating Army Regulation 145-1, paragraph 3-43a(16) as a
reason for discharge. This section was cited in the Cadet Commands initial
decision issued on 12 June 2001 and 4 February 2002.

      c.  A voluntary medical disenrollment request is still pending from
October 2000, without a response.

      d.  Whether her actions were voluntary or involuntary remains at
issue.  The option to enter active duty on or after 23 March 2003 has not
been a realistic choice given her physical health problems.

      e.  Her issues are more complex than stated in this short response,
supporting details and related issues were addressed at the hearing and
throughout the appeals process.  She desires that the Board thoroughly
review the matters or allow her to make a personal appearance.

22.  Army Regulation 145-1 (Reserve Officers' Training Corps -Senior
Reserve Officers' Training Corps Program: Organization, Administration, and
Training) prescribes policies and general procedures for administering the
Army's SROTC Program.  This provides in pertinent part that a scholarship
or non-scholarship cadet under consideration for involuntary call to active
duty for breach of contract will be so ordered within 60 days after they
would normally complete baccalaureate degree requirements or the cadet is
no longer enrolled in school.  Graduate students may not be ordered to
active duty until they complete the academic year in which they are
enrolled or disenroll from the school, whichever occurs first.  The cadet
will not be discharged/disenrolled from the SROTC program until a
determination has been received from Headquarters, Cadet Command.  If it is
determined the cadet will be ordered to active duty, the cadet will not be
discharged, and Cadet Command will issue active duty orders.

      a.  Paragraph 43(a)(14) provides that an undesirable character is
demonstrated by cheating on examinations, stealing, unlawful possession,
use, distribution, manufacture, sale (including attempts) of any controlled
substances, as listed or defined in 21 USC 812, discreditable incidents
with civil or university authorities, falsifying academic records or any
forms of academic dishonesty, failure to pay just debts, or similar acts.
Such acts may also be characterized as misconduct.

      b.  Paragraph 43(a)(15) provides that indifferent attitude or lack of
interest in military training is evidenced by frequent absences from
military science classes or drill, an established pattern of shirking,
failure to successfully complete an established weight control program, or
similar acts.

      c.  Paragraph 43(a)(16) Provides that a breach of contract (including
formerly used term willful evasion) is defined as any act, performance or
nonperformance on the part of a student that breaches the terms of the
contract regardless of whether the act, performance or nonperformance was
done with specific intent to breach the contract or whether the student
knew that the act, performance or nonperformance breaches the contract).

23.  Army Regulation 37-104-3 (Finance Update) provides the policies and
provisions for entitlements and collections of pay and allowances of
military personnel.  Chapter 59 currently in effect, provides for
recoupment of educational expenses, e.g., SROTC, United States Military
Academy, and advanced civilian schooling under a previous agreement when
obligated active duty service has not been completed.

24.  Title 10, United States 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 signed a SROTC contract and she was paid a sum of money
which obligated her to complete the SROTC program.  The contract was
breached when she failed meet the terms of the contract regardless of
whether it was intentionally or not.  She was advised she could fulfill his
contractual obligation either by entering the Army in an active duty status
or she could monetarily repay the debt.

2.  The applicant's debt in the amount of $51,350.00 is a valid debt and
she has established no valid basis for the cancellation of this debt.

3.  The AR 15-6 hearing did find evidence of misconduct in that the
applicant admitted she provided false statements to the cadre and other
school officials concerning reasons why she could not attend training
events in February 2000.  She also demonstrated that she had been dishonest
when she admitted to falsifying a police report in February 2000.  The
Surgeon General's review of
29 February 2001 found that the applicant failed to disclose a history of
information that may have disqualified her from participation in the SROTC
program had the information been known.  The applicant was also found to
have cheated on one occasion (freshman chemistry).

4.  The applicant was found guilty of cheating during her freshman year.
The evidence was inconclusive to determine that she cheated on her military
science examination in 2000.  The issue was raised because it was believed
the applicant demonstrated a history of cheating on examinations.  The
Cadet Command did not specify the cheating incident, but merely found the
applicant had cheated.

5.  Regardless of the applicant's contentions, the available evidence
supports that she failed to meet the requirements of her SROTC contract for
various reasons.  She believes her health concerns limits her ability to
meet her SROTC contractual requirements and that serving in an active duty
status is not a viable option.  Her beliefs were reviewed and found
invalid.

6.  There is no evidence that the applicant's rights were violated.

7.  Personal appearances are granted at the Board's discretion when it is
determined that the applicant may be able to provide beneficial
information.  In this case, the ABCMR has determined that a personal
appearance is unwarranted.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__le____  __jed___  __jrm___  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.



                                        Lester Echols
                                  ______________________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20030010779                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051117                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |112.1200                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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