RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            8 December 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20050003038


      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. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Richard T. Dunbar             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. James B. Gunlicks             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Scott W. Faught               |     |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 record be corrected
regarding her disenrollment from the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC).


2.  The applicant states, in effect, that her disenrollment from the Army
ROTC program at Creighton University was unjust.  She claims the unjust
disenrollment is causing her and her family many problems.  She indicates
that she simply does not have the capability needed to repay the loan, and
that she would not have attended a private school if she had to pay for it
herself.  She states that she is unable to obtain help from her parents.
Her mother is unemployed and suffering from mental health problems.  She
states that if it is necessary for her to repay this unfair debt, the
payments must be made more reasonable.  The requested payment is 25 percent
more than she makes each month, and a payment of $1,600.00 per month is not
possible.

3.  The applicant further states that she does not understand how she was
disenrolled when she passed the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) a week
later.  She claims she was in the ROTC program for three and one half
years, and she is aware of students who had their commissioning pushed back
because they were unable to pass the APFT.  She claims she has been
punished enough for four seconds on an APFT and requests she not be
punished because the United States Army Cadet Command (USACC) did not
receive her file on time.  She states that she is sure she submitted it in
plenty of time.  She also asks why it took over three months for USACC to
notify her it did not receive her file on time.

4.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement in support of her
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s ROTC records were not provided to the Board for review.
 This case is being considered using reconstructed records consisting of
the following documents:  ROTC Scholarship Contract (DA Form 597-3);
Psychologist Letter to President, Board of Officers, dated 11 February
2004; Applicant Letter to President, Board of Officers, dated 17 February
2004; President of the Board of Officers Memorandum, dated 24 February
2004; Applicant Testimony to Board of Officers, dated 18 February 2004;
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) Letter, dated 4 January 2005;
USACC Director of Personnel and Administration Letter, dated 19 January
2005;  Army Physical Fitness Scorecards;


2.  On 14 December 2000, the applicant entered into an ROTC Scholarship
Cadet Contract (DA Form 597-3).  She enlisted in the United States Army
Reserve (USAR) as a cadet in order to become a member of the ROTC program
at Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska.  She 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.

3.  The DA Form 597-3 on file confirms the applicant agreed that if she
were disenrolled from the ROTC program for any reason she could be ordered
to active duty as an enlisted Soldier for a period of not more than four
years or, in lieu of being ordered to active duty, she could be required to
reimburse the Government 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.

4.  On 4 January 2004, the DFAS, Denver provided the applicant payment
instructions regarding her debt to the Government.  The DFAS account
statement indicated the applicant was indebted in the amount of $57,889.00
and that a payment of $1,600.12 was due at the time.

5.  On 18 February 2004, a board of officers convened to determine if the
applicant entered into a valid Army Senior ROTC contract, if the applicant
did or did not receive advanced educational assistance in the form of ROTC
scholarship monies from the United States Government, and if the applicant
did or did not meet the APFT standards.  The final findings and conclusion
of this board were not made available; however, the board proceedings
establish that the applicant understood that she entered into a valid ROTC
contract and that she received the advanced educational assistance, which
constituted a valid debt to the Government.  The applicant also admitted
that she had been notified that she was not ranked on the national order of
merit list and was identified as lacking the requisite qualities for
commissioning.  The applicant also admitted that in her first year, she
failed 3 out of  three APFTs.  In her second year, she failed 5 of 6 APFTs,
and in her third year, she failed 3 of 7 APFTs.

6.  During the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained
from the Director, Personnel and Administration, United States Army Cadet
Command (USACC).  This official stated that the term of a scholarship
contract requires that a cadet either repay the debt monetarily or agree to
be ordered to active duty through ROTC channels based on the needs of the
Army.

7.  The USACC official further stated that after being disenrolled from the
ROTC program for breach of contract, the applicant was offered the options
available to her on 13 September 2004, and she received the notification
and addendum on September 28, 2004; however, she failed to respond until 20
October 2004,
after a debt had already been established with the DFAS, Denver on 15
October 2004.  She further indicated that the applicant’s decision to
breach the terms of her ROTC contract was a voluntary action, and the
recommendation of the USACC was that her debt not be reduced and that she
be required to reimburse the Government for the advanced educational
assistance she received.

8.  The applicant was provided a copy of the USACC advisory opinion and
responded on 27 November 2005.  She claims she was disenrolled from the
ROTC program for failing an Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) that she
passed a week later.  She claims that it is her belief that she did her
part in spending three and one half years in the ROTC program.  She claims
she spent her college life planning for and participating in training
activities, and she provides an evaluation indicating she passed all
requirements with a satisfactory mark. She also claims she had extreme
family hardship in the weeks preceding the APFT in question, and she has
included hospital reports for her mother, who tried to kill herself.  She
also states she had a scared helpless 14 year old brother at home, for whom
she had to provide daily needs.  She states that she put her family ahead
of herself in those few weeks and her physical fitness routine was set-
aside.  She also states that she spent several weeks talking to a
university counselor to ensure her life would not spin out of control, but
she can no longer afford such counseling services now.  She concludes by
asking that her hardship be taken into consideration when her case is
reviewed.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s claim that her Army ROTC scholarship debt should be
forgiven based on the hardships she has and continues to experience, and
the supporting documentary evidence she submitted were carefully
considered.  However, although her hardships are unfortunate, they are not
sufficiently mitigating to provide the requested relief.

2.  As confirmed in the USACC advisory opinion, the applicant failed to
meet the APFT standards required by his Army ROTC contract, and lacked the
requisite qualities for commissioning.  Therefore, she breached the terms
of her ROTC scholarship contract.  Her hardships while unfortunate, do not
forgive her of the responsibility to repay the scholarship fund debt she
incurred as a result of breaching her Army ROTC contract.

3.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was accepted into an
Army ROTC scholarship program and that she failed to satisfy the
contractual requirements of this program.  At the time she breached the
contract, the applicant was offered the opportunity to be ordered to active
duty in an enlisted status in lieu of repaying the debt, but she failed to
elect this option and has never expressed a willingness to serve on active
duty in an enlisted status, which could have resulted in her avoiding her
current debt to the Government.

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

5.  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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___RTD__  __JBG__  __SWF  _  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.




            ____Richard T. Dunbar ____
                    CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050003038                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/12/08                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A                                     |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A                                     |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |N/A                                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |N/A                                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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