RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  27 November 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070011871 


	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.


Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano

Director

Mr. Mohammed R. Elhaj

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. William D. Powers

Chairperson

Mr. Gerald J. Purcell

Member

Mr. John G. Heck

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 his Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) scholarship debt be forgiven based on his enlistment and service in the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was enrolled in the Army ROTC Texas Christian University in December 2001.  He was disenrolled from the ROTC program due to his failure to pass the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) and meet the height and weight standards requirements in October 2003.  He enlisted in the USMC on 28 January 2005 and has now been in the USMC approximately 2 honorable years and that he is on his second tour in Iraq.

3.  The applicant provided the following documentary evidence in support of his application:

	a.  General Power of Attorney, dated 1 August 2007, appointing his mother as his agent.

	b.  Agent-authored statement, dated 13 September 2007, describing the circumstances leading to the applicant’s disenrollement from the ROTC program and enlistment in the USMC.

	c. Applicant’s USMC Basic Individual Record, dated 18 April 2007.

d.  Applicant’s platoon commander’s statement, dated 20 April 2007, addressed to Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) requesting relief of debt due to military service in the USMC.

	e.  DA Form 597-3 (Army Senior Reserve Officer's Training Corps Scholarship Cadet Contract).

	f.  Applicant's USMC DD Form 4, dated 28 January 2005.

	g.  Memorandum, Headquarters, US Army Cadet Command, dated 24 October 2003, Notification of disenrollment from the ROTC program.

	h.  DFAS Letter of Indebtedness, dated 18 May 2005.




CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the U. S. Army Reserve (ROTC Control Group) on 13 December 2001.  Paragraph 5 (Terms of Disenrollment) of the applicant's DA Form 597-3 (Army Senior ROTC Scholarship Cadet Contract) states that if the cadet were disenrolled from the ROTC program for any reason, the Secretary of the Army could order the cadet to reimburse the United States the dollar amount plus interest that bears the same ratio to the total cost of the scholarship financial assistance provided by the United States to the cadet as the unserved portion of active duty bears to the total period of active duty the cadet agreed to serve or was ordered to serve.  

2.  Paragraph 6 (Enlisted Active Duty Service Obligation) of the applicant’s DA Form 597-3 states that if he were called to active duty for breach of contract under the provisions of paragraph 5, he would be ordered to active duty for 2 years if the breach occurred during Military Science (MS) II; for 3 years if the breach occurred during MS III, or for 4 years if the breach occurred during MS IV.

3.  On 24 October 2003, the U.S. Army Cadet Command notified the applicant by memorandum that he was disenrolled from the ROTC program in accordance with Army Regulation 145-1 (Senior Reserve Officer's Training Corps Program: Organization, Administration, and Training) due to breach of contract based on his failure to pass the APFT and meet the height and weight standards requirements.  The memorandum also informed the applicant of his obligation to satisfy the Army through active duty in an enlisted status or repayment of the cost of educational assistance provided by the Army, valued at $32,195.00 at that time.

4.  On 5 November 2003, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the memorandum under which he was being disenrolled from the ROTC program.  He elected to repay the total amount owed, $32,195.00, in monthly installments, plus interest on the amount owed, as specified in his scholarship contract.

5.  On 28 January 2005, the applicant enlisted in the USMC for a period of 4 years.  There was no enlistment bonus involved with this contract.  His statement of service shows that his expiration of term of service (ETS) is 6 February 2009.  His records further show that he is currently serving his second tour in Iraq with the 1st Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division, from 19 August 2007 through on or about 1 June 2008.



5.  On 18 May 2005, DFAS informed the applicant by letter that he owed the amount of $26,839.94 indebtedness for the recoupment of education expenses paid on his behalf during his participation in the ROTC program.  This amount was the total debt of $32,195.00 minus the periodic payments that the applicant made to date.  

6.  On 20 April 2007, the applicant’s platoon commander requested DFAS relieve the applicant from his debt due to his service in the USMC.  The applicant’s records do no show a response from DFAS to the platoon commander.

7.  During the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the United States Army Cadet Command (USACC).  The Deputy Chief of Staff, G1, stated that the terms of the ROTC scholarship contract require a cadet either repay his debt monetarily or agree to be ordered to active duty through ROTC channels based on the needs of the Army.  The applicant was offered these options on 24 October 2003 after being disenrolled from the ROTC program due to breach of contract.  He was aware of the options to enter active duty in repayment of his scholarship debt through cadet command channels.  He chose to repay in monthly installments and a debt was established by DFAS on 19 November 2003.

8.  The USACC Deputy Chief of Staff, G1, also stated in the advisory opinion that the applicant's decision to breach his ROTC contract and enlistment in the USMC were voluntary actions.  His voluntary enlistment in the USMC is not an authorized remedy for ROTC debt repayment under the terms of his ROTC contract.  He should not be allowed to profit from his voluntary enlistment and his actions should not eliminate his debt to the government. 

9.  The applicant’s agent responded to the advisory opinion by submitting a rebuttal statement, dated 25 October 2007 through a newly appointed counsel.  Counsel conceded that the applicant’s current service is not in the Army; however, it is still in the Armed Forces of the United States.  Additionally, counsel stated that not only did the applicant take a $20,000 cut in pay from his job prior to his current enlistment in the USMC, he had to also pay for uniforms, gear, and other equipment, has made $5,448.30 toward satisfying this debt, and has lost over $80,000 overall just for the honor of serving his country.  Counsel added that the applicant’s USMC recruiter made a verbal promise to him that his ROTC debt would be forgiven and that all he had to do was serve two years and make a formal request.  Counsel concludes that the applicant is a hard working, committed, and dedicated Marine.  Regardless of the branch of military the applicant is serving in, the result of his service is the same.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Evidence of record shows that the applicant was disenrolled from the ROTC program due to his failure to pass the APFT and meet the height and weight standards requirements.  He was subsequently found in breach of his ROTC contract and was, therefore offered the opportunity to serve in an enlisted status. He declined active duty and elected to repay his scholarship fund.

2.  Further, he enlisted in the USMC some 14 months after his disenrollment from the ROTC program and is now serving on active duty with the USMC for a period of 4 years.  His current active duty service commitment is not the result of being ordered to active duty through ROTC channels in satisfaction of his ROTC contractual obligation.  

3.  Nevertheless, although not provided for in his DA Form 597-3, the applicant’s 28 January 2005 enlistment in the USMC serves the same purpose as would have been served had he been ordered to active duty in the Army.  The Department of Defense continues to get the benefits of his service during his current 4-year enlistment.  He would have owed the Army 4 years had he been ordered to active duty.  As a matter of equity it would be appropriate to consider his enlistment in the USMC to have met the active duty obligation required by his ROTC scholarship contract.

BOARD VOTE:

__wdp___  __gjp___  __jgh___  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  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 the $32,195.00 debt under the original terms of the ROTC contract by successfully completing 4 years of active duty service in the U.S. Marine Corps.

2.  If the applicant fails to complete the period of enlisted service obligated as a result of his amended ROTC scholarship contract either voluntarily or because of misconduct, his ROTC debt would be required to be recouped on a pro-rated basis in accordance with his DA Form 597-3.




							William D. Powers
______________________
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070011871
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20071127
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY

DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
(GRANT)
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
128.1000
2.
104.0000
3.

4.

5.

6.