RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        25 July 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060004612


      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. Beverly A. Young              |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Allen Raub                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. LaVerne Douglas               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Peguine Taylor                |     |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 he be released from his Reserve Officers’
Training Corps (ROTC) debt obligation of $11,745.97.

2.  The applicant states he is currently serving on active duty in the U.S.
Army.  He is now under a 3-year enlistment contract and will have to extend
his enlistment to at least 5 years because of the obligations of his
military occupational specialty (MOS).

3.  The applicant provides a copy of Headquarters, United States Army
Infantry Center, Fort Benning, Georgia Orders 101-3343 dated 11 April 2005;
his enlistment contract dated 12 January 2005; and his Enlisted Record
Brief.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 22 October 2001, the applicant signed a DA Form 597-3 (Army Senior
ROTC Scholarship Cadet Contract).  Paragraph 7d states that if the cadet
were disenrolled from the ROTC Program for any reason, the Secretary of the
Army could order him to reimburse the United States through repayment of an
amount of money, plus interest, equal to the entire amount of financial
assistance paid by the United States for his advanced education from the
commencement of the contractual agreement to the date of his disenrollment
or refusal to accept a commission.  Or, the cadet could be ordered to
active duty for not more than four years.

2.  Paragraph 12 of the applicant's DA Form 597-3 states the cadet
understood and agreed that, if he voluntarily or because of misconduct
failed to begin or failed to complete any period of active duty that he may
have incurred under the contract, he would be required to reimburse the
United States an amount of money, plus interest, that is equal to or bore
the same ratio to the total cost of the financial assistance provided him
as the unserved portion of such duty bore to the total period of such duty
he was obligated to serve.

3.  On 6 January 2005, the applicant was disenrolled from ROTC due to his
undesirable character as demonstrated by his discreditable incidents with
civil authorities.

4.  The applicant was informed the total amount of monies spent in support
of his educational assistance was $11,946.10.  He agreed to reimburse his
scholarship monies in lieu of being ordered to active duty.


5.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 January 2005 for a
period
of 3 years and 19 weeks, in pay grade E-3.  He enlisted for a $14,000.00
cash enlistment bonus.

6.  In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion was obtained
from the Deputy Chief of Staff, G1, U.S. Army Cadet Command.  The opinion
stated that the terms of the scholarship contract require that a cadet
either repay the debt monetarily or agree to be ordered to active duty
through the ROTC channels based on the needs of the Army.  The applicant
was offered active duty on 22 March 2004 and he declined this option.  He
was then offered monetary payback options on 6 January 2005 after being
disenrolled from the ROTC program for breach of contract.  The applicant
elected to make monthly payments and a debt was established with the
Defense Finance and Accounting Service – Denver.

7.  The advisory opinion stated that the applicant's current active duty
service is not the result of being ordered to active duty through ROTC
channels in satisfaction of his ROTC contractual obligation.  That
Headquarters recommended that his voluntary enlistment not reduce the
amount that he is required to reimburse the United States for his advanced
education assistance.

8.  A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for
comment or rebuttal.  However, he did not respond within the allotted
timeframe.

9.  Army Regulation 135-210 prescribes policies and procedures for ordering
individual Soldiers of the Army National Guard of the United States and the
U.S. Army Reserve to active duty during peacetime.  In pertinent part, it
states former ROTC cadets, when ordered to active duty, will be ordered to
report to the U.S. Army Reception Battalion and will be ordered to active
duty in pay grade E-1.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s ROTC debt totaled $11,946.10.  He agreed to pay the
debt in lieu of being ordered to active duty.

2.  Had the applicant chosen active duty or been involuntarily ordered to
active duty as a result of his disenrollment, he would have been assigned
against the needs of the Army in pay grade E-1, and not allowed any
enlistment options.  Instead, he enlisted in the Regular Army in January
2005 in pay grade E-3, for a $14,000.00 cash enlistment bonus.

3.  The prospect of negating the applicant's $11,946.10 debt for a free
education he received from the Army without becoming an officer, plus
allowing him to receive any enlistment bonus or other financial incentive
he ordinarily would not have received, would be a windfall.  While the
Board has no jurisdiction to stop any enlistment bonus in this case, any
such bonus and incentive would be a legitimate factor to consider in
denying relief regarding the ROTC debt.  Since the cash enlistment bonus of
$14,000.00 is greater than the debt, no relief would be recommended.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

AR______  LD______  PT______  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.




                                  Allen Raub____________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060004612                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060725                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |128.1000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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