RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        1 August 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060006005


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Kathleen A. Newman            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Conrad V. Meyer               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Yolanda Maldonado             |     |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.

2.  The applicant states that he enlisted after being disenrolled from ROTC
and has served over 2 years on active duty.

3.  The applicant provides his U. S. Army Reserve Cadet enlistment
contract; his DA Form 597-3 (Army Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps
(ROTC) Scholarship Cadet Contract) with addendum; his disenrollment letter;
and a      25 June 2003 letter from the Defense Finance and Accounting
Service.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant has served in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

2.  On 11 October 2000, the applicant signed a DA Form 597-3.  Paragraph 1f
stated that he agreed to maintain, as a minimum, a cumulative academic
grade point average (GPA) of 2.0 on a 4.0 or equivalent scale for each
semester or quarter.  Paragraph 1g stated that he agreed to maintain at
least a 3.0 on a 4.0 or equivalent scale, cumulative and semester or
quarter, academic GPA in all ROTC courses.

3.  Paragraph 7a of the applicant’s DA Form 597-3 stated that if he were
disenrolled from the ROTC Program for failing to complete the educational
requirements specified in this agreement, 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, he could be ordered to active duty for not more
than four years.

4.  By letter dated 22 October 2002, the applicant was disenrolled from
ROTC based on his failure to maintain a minimum semester GPA of 2.0 on a
4.0 scale.  He was informed the total amount of monies spent in support of
his educational assistance was $5,647.50.  On 11 November 2002, he agreed
to reimburse his scholarship monies in lieu of being ordered to active
duty.

5.  On 19 June 2003, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 6
years, in pay grade E-3, for an $18,000 cash enlistment bonus and training
in Special Forces.

6.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from
the     U. S. Army Cadet Command.  That Command recommended disapproval of
the applicant’s request as his current active duty service is not the
result of being ordered to active duty through ROTC channels in
satisfaction of his ROTC contractual obligation.

7.  A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for
comment or rebuttal.  He responded by stating that he understands that the
advisory opinion correctly interprets the law; however, he believes that
such interpretation is inappropriate considering his circumstances.  He
failed to understand the difference between enlisting on active duty and
being ordered to active duty by Cadet Command.  He opted to repay the
scholarship at first, but when his financial and family situation changed
due to the family business hitting a slow period, he felt that the right
thing to do was to enlist.  He is currently serving on a Special Forces
Team and has deployed to Iraq in support of the global war on terrorism.
In addition to being in a high-risk military occupational specialty and
having a high deployment tempo, he enlisted in this field for 6 years
instead of the normal 4 years.  He believes his voluntary enlistment in the
Army achieves the same goal as being ordered to active duty.  He is still
serving his country and the Army is still getting a dedicated Soldier.  He
provided numerous extracts (completion certificates, award orders) from his
personnel records.

8.  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 that 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 totals $5,647.50.  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 June 2003
in pay grade E-3 and for an $18,000 cash enlistment bonus.

3.  The Board sincerely appreciates the contributions the applicant is
making to the Army and the war effort in Iraq.  However, the prospect of
negating his $5,647.50 debt for a free education he received from the Army
without becoming an officer, plus allowing him to receive an $18,000
enlistment bonus he ordinarily would not have received, is a windfall.
While the Board has no jurisdiction to stop the enlistment bonus in this
case, the bonus is a legitimate factor to consider in denying equitable
relief regarding the ROTC debt.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__kan___  __cvm___  __ym____  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.




                                  __Kathleen A. Newman__
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060006005                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060801                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |128.10                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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