RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        22 March 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070003318


      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. Gerard W. Schwartz            |     |Acting Director      |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Linda D. Simmons              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Roland S. Venable             |     |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 cancellation of his Reserve Officers' Training
Corps (ROTC) debt.

2.  The applicant states he has completed over 3 years of active duty
service in the U. S. Coast Guard (USCG).

3.  The applicant provides a letter from his servicing USCG administration
office.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  By letter dated 6 April 2000, the U. S. Army ROTC Instructor Group,
Howard University, informed the applicant of his conditional selection to
receive an Army ROTC 3 1/2 year scholarship.  The letter stated in part
that the applicant must be medically qualified, maintain all eligibility
criteria, and pass the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) before
contracting.

2.  On 14 September 2000, the applicant signed a DA Form 597-3 (Army Senior
ROTC Scholarship Cadet Contract).  The contract is partially illegible, to
include whole sentences missing.  Paragraph 7d states 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 4 years.  Paragraph 8 stated if the cadet
were disenrolled during Military Science (MS) II, he/she would be ordered
to active duty for 3 years.

3.  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.

4.  The DA Form 597-3 indicates the scholarship was for 4 years.

5.  The applicant was counseled a number of times for APFT failure.

6.  On 2 April 2002, the applicant was placed on leave of absence pending
disenrollment.

7.  On 1 July 2002, the applicant requested a board of officers.  He stated
that other than the 2-mile run APFT requirement he met all of the Army ROTC
requirements for the Advanced Course.  He also stated he was under the
impression that he had a 3-year scholarship.  He stated that after paying
the first semester he was informed by the Howard University ROTC program
that he was given a 4-year scholarship and would be receiving a refund
check for everything he had already paid.  He thought it was odd to receive
a 4-year scholarship without meeting the Army height and weight standard
and not even taking an APFT.  He thought he was given a 3-year scholarship,
to get in shape over his freshman year.

8.  On 7 October 2002, an investigating officer found that there was no
indication the applicant met the APFT requirement for contracting or by 15
December 2000, the term [for which] he was contracted and enrolled in the
ROTC program.  The investigating officer found there was no record of
counseling for the applicant’s failure to meet APFT standards in September
and October 2000.  All records began in August 2001 and were not in
accordance with Cadet Command Regulation 145-1.  The investigating officer
recommended the applicant be reenrolled in the program and properly
counseled immediately as to his requirement to meet all prescribed
standards to include height, weight, and APFT.  The investigating officer
recommended that the applicant be required to meet all standards not later
than 15 April 2003.

9.  On 19 November 2002, the applicant was again placed on leave of absence
pending disenrollment.

10.  On 28 January 2003, the applicant was notified that disenrollment
action was being initiated due to inaptitude for military service as
demonstrated by lack of general adaptability, skill, hardness, ability to
learn, or leadership abilities, specifically a lack of motivation to
successfully pass the APFT after being readmitted into the program.

11.  On 26 February 2003, the applicant requested a board of officers or
investigating officer.

12.  On 26 February 2003, a board of officers found, in part, that the
applicant did enter into a valid Army Senior ROTC scholarship contract on
14 September 2000; received several counseling statements regarding his
APFT performances; received a pardon from his initial leave of absence
board on 7 October 2002 and still failed to meet the program requirements;
and did not meet the standard requirements of the Senior ROTC program.  The
board noted that, from his own admission, the applicant should have never
received a scholarship because he never met the standards that were
outlined in a memorandum dated 6 April 2000. The board recommended he be
disenrolled and repay the full amount of his valid debt of $21,075.00 to
the Government comprised of advanced educational assistance received in the
form of scholarship benefits.

13.  By letter dated 1 April 2003, an Assistant Professor of Military
Science summarized the findings of the applicant’s ROTC disenrollment
board.  He also stated that the applicant should not have been granted an
opportunity to transition to the MS III year based on his past APFT
performances.

14.  On 26 May 2003, the applicant enlisted in the USCG and entered active
duty.  He completed basic training on 18 July 2003.

15.  By letter dated 24 July 2003, the applicant nonconcurred with the
results of the disenrollment board.

16.  By letter dated 1 December 2003, the applicant was disenrolled from
ROTC. He was informed the total amount of monies spent in support of his
educational assistance was $21,075.00.  He did not complete the options
form either requesting to be ordered to active duty to fulfill his
obligation or agreeing to reimburse his scholarship monies in lieu of being
ordered to active duty.

17.  On 15 December 2004, the applicant completed Officer Candidate School,
was commissioned an ensign in the U. S. Coast Guard Reserve (USCGR), and
entered active duty.

18.  Army Regulation 145-1 (Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps
Program: Organization, Administration, and Training), paragraph 3-34a(7)(e)
states that to be eligible to receive an ROTC scholarship an individual
must possess officer potential as evidenced by physical fitness.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The letter dated 6 April 2000, from the U. S. Army ROTC Instructor
Group, Howard University, informed the applicant in part that he must be
medically qualified, maintain all eligibility criteria, and pass the APFT
before contracting.  However, such a requirement is neither in his contract
nor in the Army Regulation governing the Senior ROTC program (although it
might be in the governing Cadet Command regulation).  It appears the
applicant entered into a valid contract, although there is some question as
to why he would sign a partially illegible contract.
2.  Nevertheless, although not provided for in his DA Form 597-3, the
applicant’s 26 May 2003 enlistment in the USCG, plus his 15 December 2004
commission in the USCGR with his concurrent order to active duty, served
the same purpose as would have been served had he been ordered to active
duty in the Army.  The Department of Defense has gotten the benefits of his
service for a period of almost 4 years.  He would have owed the Army 3
years had he been ordered to active duty.  As a matter of equity it would
be appropriate to consider his enlistment in the USCG and his subsequent
commission in the USCGR with concurrent order to active duty to have met
the active duty obligation required by his ROTC scholarship contract.

BOARD VOTE:

__lds___  __jtm___  __rsv___  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant
a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all
Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by
amending his ROTC scholarship contract to show that he would satisfy his
$21,075.00 ROTC debt under the original terms of the ROTC contract by
enlisting and serving on active duty in the U. S. Coast Guard and by
serving on active duty as a commissioned officer in the U. S. Coast Guard
Reserve.




                                  __Linda D. Simmons__
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070003318                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070322                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schwartz                            |
|ISSUES         1.       |128.10                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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