RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:  
	 

	BOARD DATE:         1 December 2005                     
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20050001782


	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

Mr. Jessie B. Strickland

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. John T. Meixell

Chairperson

Mr. Richard G. Sayre

Member

Ms. Maribeth Love

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 her Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) debt in the amount of $16,656 be cancelled or remitted.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she was not properly counseled by ROTC officials and that the improper counseling caused her to be indebted to the government.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of her disenrollment packet which includes a report of investigation.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE: 

1.  Counsel requests that the Board cancel the applicant’s debt to the government.

2.  Counsel states, in effect, that the applicant was incorrectly advised by ROTC officials that she could retain her scholarship and compete for a regular ROTC non-nursing scholarship and based on that advice, she started her second year of the scholarship, which in effect, obligated her to repay her scholarship if she failed to complete it.  Thinking that she could compete for a different scholarship in a different major, she did not take the courses required for her nursing major. He goes on to state that she gave up on college and ROTC and subsequently left school because she did not maintain a minimum grade point average (GPA).  He also states that she did not meet the minimum GPA during her freshman year and should not have been encouraged to continue when officials knew that she had not performed to standard in her first year of college.  He also states that the applicant is at fault for immaturity and the inability to perform in an unsupervised environment; however, ROTC officials at the university contributed to the situation and caused her to be obligated to the government.

3.  Counsel provides no additional documents other than those provided by the applicant.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  On 23 October 2000, the applicant entered into a 4-year ROTC Scholarship Contract (DA Form 597-3) at Clemson University in which she agreed to enroll in the necessary courses and successfully complete, within the prescribed time, the requirements for the degree in the academic major stated in her contract (nursing).  She also agreed to remain enrolled in and successfully complete the ROTC Program, including ROTC Advanced Camp and all training as prescribed by the Secretary of the Army or his/her designee, as a prerequisite for commissioning, in return for a payment of tuition and educational fees up to an annual amount of $16,000.

2.  She also acknowledged that she understood that she was required to maintain her Army physical fitness and weight standards in accordance with Army Regulations, that she was required to take the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) at least twice a year, that she was required to maintain a cumulative grade point average of 2.0, and that she must maintain a cumulative grade point average of 3.0 in all ROTC courses.

3.  She further acknowledged that she understood that if she failed to complete the educational requirements of her agreement or was disenrolled from the ROTC Program, the Secretary of the Army or his/her designee could order her to active duty as an enlisted soldier for a period of not more than 4 years or, in lieu of being ordered to active duty, may require her to reimburse the United States through repayment of an amount of money, plus interest, for the financial assistance received through the ROTC Program.

4.  On 28 December 2001, the applicant was placed on administrative suspension pending a request for termination of her scholarship and retention as a non-scholarship cadet based on her failure to enroll in the courses required for her academic major, her current semester average of 0.71, and her GPA of 1.62.

5.  On or about 7 January 2002, the applicant withdrew from Clemson University and on 11 January 2002, a memorandum was dispatched to the applicant from the Army ROTC Battalion Commander at Clemson University informing her that he was initiating actions to disenroll her from the ROTC Program due to her withdrawal from the university.  She was advised of her rights and the fact that she may be required to repay her scholarship benefits in the amount of $16,656.00, in lieu of call to active duty. 

6.  The applicant elected to request a board of officers or investigating officer be appointed so that she could personally appear and respond regarding her disenrollment and/or, if a scholarship cadet, the scholarship indebtedness.  She also declined expeditious call to active duty.

7.  An investigating officer was appointed on 21 February 2002 to determine the applicant’s suitability for retention in the Army ROTC Program and the amount and validity of her scholarship debt.

8.  On 27 February 2002, the applicant was notified that an investigating officer had been appointed and informed of the specific matters to be investigated.  She was advised that she could request a formal board proceeding to take place at Clemson University, that she could request a telephonic interview if she chose not to attend in person, that she could enter a sworn statement into the record, and that if she chose to offer no testimony, the investigation would proceed with the existing evidence.

9.  On 9 April 2002, the applicant submitted a sworn statement in which she stated, in effect, that she was improperly counseled to the effect that she could remain in the ROTC Program and take courses that related to her new chosen major (Psychology); however, she was subsequently notified that her time had run out due to not taking courses related to a nursing degree.  She asserted that she should not be ordered to active duty or be required to repay her scholarship benefits because she was improperly counseled.

10.  On 16 April 2002, the Recruiting Operations Officer at Clemson University provided a sworn statement indicating that he had counseled the applicant mid-way through her first semester because it seemed her heart was not into nursing. He states that he emphasized to her that she would not be required to pay back her scholarship until the first day of her sophomore year and questioned her ability and commitment to be a nurse.  He informed her that she had choices to make if she were to continue.  He also states that he did not tell her that she could pursue a different major and still continue on her Nursing Scholarship with the ROTC Program.  He also informed her that if she chose not to pursue Nursing, she would lose her ROTC Scholarship and he made that clear on the first day of her sophomore year.  Additionally, he told her that she could remain under the nursing scholarship until she brought her grades up.

11.  On 18 April 2002, the Instructor of Military Leadership authored a memorandum for record in which he states that he advised her that she would lose her scholarship if she did not take nursing courses.  She was also advised to formally change her major and to apply for a different scholarship, which she failed to do.

12.  On 23 April 2002, the investigating officer found that the applicant had voluntarily failed to complete the requirements of her ROTC contract, that she had not been improperly counseled as she contended, that she had failed to increase her GPA above 2.5, and that she had never applied for a non-nursing scholarship.  He recommended that she be disenrolled and be required to repay her debt of $16,656.00 or be ordered to active duty.  The findings and recommendations were approved on the same day and a copy of the investigation was forwarded to the applicant for rebuttal.

13.  On 4 March 2003, she was notified by memorandum from the Cadet Command that she was disenrolled from the ROTC Program due to her withdrawal from school and that she must repay the scholarship assistance she received in the amount of $16,656.00 or be ordered to active duty.  She was also advised that if she chose to appeal/dispute the amount or validity of the debt, her appeal must be received no later than 14 days from the receipt of the letter.

14.  On 21 March 2003, she submitted an appeal concerning the repayment of the scholarship funds, which she has not provided with her application.  Her appeal was forwarded to the Department of the Army, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1 for a determination concerning the validity of her debt.

15.  On 8 December 2004, the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1 disapproved the applicant’s appeal and determined that she should repay the educational expenses in the amount of $16,656.00.  The applicant was notified through her counsel of the decision and informed that she could apply to this Board for relief. 

16.  A review of the unofficial transcript provided by the applicant indicates that military science (ROTC) was consistently one of her better classes.  In the Fall 2000 semester she had a 1.63 GPA.  In the Spring 2001 semester she had a 2.66 GPA, and in the Fall 2001 semester she had a 1.62 GPA.

17.  Title 10, United States Code, section 2005(a)(3), states, in pertinent part, that the Secretary concerned may require, as a condition to the Secretary providing advanced education assistance to any person, that such person enter into a written agreement with the Secretary concerned under the terms of which such person shall agree that if such person, voluntarily or because of misconduct, fails to complete the period of active duty specified in the agreement, or fails to fulfill any term or condition prescribed pursuant to clause, such person will reimburse the United States in an amount that bears to the total period of active duty such person agreed to serve and to such other terms and conditions as the Secretary concerned may prescribe to protect the interest of the United States.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

2.  The applicant entered into a ROTC contract in which she agreed to be ordered to active duty for a period of no more than 4 years or to repay the educational assistance funds she received if she failed to fulfill her contract.  She declined the option of being ordered to active duty, thus was obligated to repay the $16,656.00 that she owed the Government at the time.

3.  The applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence or argument that shows that there was an error or injustice related to her disenrollment from the Army ROTC for withdrawing from school or to her being required to repay the scholarship money she received based on her Army ROTC contractual obligation.  

4.  The applicant’s contention that she was improperly counseled or was misled by ROTC officials to the effect that she could remain under the nursing scholarship without taking nursing courses has been noted and found to be without merit.  Notwithstanding that she has failed to show through evidence submitted with her application that such occurred, it is also noted that she also failed to maintain the minimum GPA for the courses she did take that were not related to her nursing major.

5.  However, even though she failed to honor the conditions of her ROTC contract by not taking the required courses and maintaining a minimum 2.0 GPA, she was eventually disenrolled from the ROTC Program because she withdrew from school.

6.  While the applicant and her counsel would have the Board believe that her failure to remain in school was in large part, the fault of the ROTC faculty, it appears by reviewing her transcripts that her ROTC classes were her strong suit and that she did not apply herself as well to the other courses she was taking, even after she decided to switch her major.

7.  The evidence clearly shows that she was afforded every benefit of her ROTC contract until such time as she defaulted on the terms of the contract by withdrawing from school.  She was afforded the opportunity to be ordered to active duty to repay the debt in accordance with the terms of her contract and she elected not to do so.  Accordingly, the Board finds that she was properly made aware of the conditions of her contract from the day she signed it until she was disenrolled from the ROTC Program and finds no basis to forgive a valid debt incurred by the applicant.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JTM__  __RGS__  _MBL____  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.





		____John T. Meixell_____
		        CHAIRPERSON





INDEX

CASE ID
AR20050001782
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
2005/12/01
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
(DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.128.1000
293/CANC DEBT
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.