IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  24 September 2008

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080003559 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his debt for not completing the requirements of a Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) scholarship be terminated and he been reimbursed the amount of the debt already collected.  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he enlisted in the Regular Army for four years and has served two of those years in the 3rd Ranger Battalion.  He states that he will most likely reenlist for four more years, and his time in service is far more valuable than his debt.  As a result, he requests his active duty service be substituted for his debt.   

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of his application:  Enlistment Contract (DD Form 4); Enlisted Record Brief (ERB); and Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) Letter, dated 24 May 2006. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 27 September 2003, the applicant entered into an Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) Scholarship Cadet Contract (DA Form 597-3).  By signing the contract, he acknowledged his understanding of the conditions of the contract and that he concurred with them.  


2.  At the time the applicant entered into his ROTC contract, he further acknowledged his understanding that if he failed to complete the educational requirements of his agreement or was disenrolled from the ROTC program, the Secretary of the Army or his designee could order him to active duty as an enlisted Soldier; or in lieu of being ordered to active duty, he could be required to repay financial assistance he received through the ROTC program, plus interest. 

3.  On 8 November 2004, the Professor of Military Science (PMS), Norwich University, Northfield, Vermont, published a memorandum notifying the applicant of the initiation of disenrollment action.  The PMS informed the applicant he was initiating action to disenroll the applicant from the ROTC program based on his undesirable character.  

4.  On 29 November 2004, the applicant completed a statement acknowledging his understanding of the basis for his disenrollment notification.  In this statement, he also elected to decline expeditious call to active duty.

5.  On 3 January 2005, the commanding general (CG) of the United States Army Cadet Command (USACC) published a memorandum notifying the applicant of his disenrollment from the ROTC program.  The applicant was informed that he was disenrolled from the ROTC program based on his undesirable character, as demonstrated by being dismissed from the University for stealing a computer monitor from the library.  An Addendum to the memorandum provided the applicant the option to fulfilling his contractual obligation by repaying the debt of $27,875.00 monetarily in a lump sum or in monthly installments with interest.  There is no indication the applicant elected one of these options. 

6.  On 19 January 2006, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years and entered active duty in the grade of private first class (PFC).  In addition to entering the Army in the rank of PFC, the applicant also received a $20,000 enlistment bonus and an Army College Fund incentive of $67,824.00.

7.  On 24 May 2006, the DFAS informed the applicant he owed a debt to the Government in the amount of $27, 875.00, for ROTC education assistance.   

8.  In connection with the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Deputy Chief of Staff, G1, USACC.  It states 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.  It further indicates the applicant declined expeditious order to active duty through ROTC channels, and as a result a debt for the ROTC scholarship was established.  

9.  In addition, the DCS, G1, USACC states that the applicant's enlisted service in the Army, for which he received an enlistment bonus, is not an authorized remedy for debt repayment under the terms of his ROTC contract, and his actions should not eliminate his debt to the Government.  

10.  On 25 March 2008, the applicant was provided a copy of the USACC advisory opinion in order to have the opportunity to reply to or rebut its contents.  To date, the applicant has failed to respond.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his 4-year enlistment in the RA should fulfill his obligation under his breached ROTC contract was carefully considered.  However, the applicant's ROTC contract called for an expeditious call to active duty through ROTC channels at the needs of the Army without the benefit of advancement in grade or other incentives he received in connection with his RA enlistment.  Nevertheless, in this case, the applicant’s enlistment in the Army serves the same purpose as would have been served had he been ordered to active duty in the Army through ROTC channels, and had the amount of his ROTC debt exceeded the amount he received in enlistment bonuses and other incentives, relief may have been appropriate in this case.   

2.  Although the applicant’s 4-year enlistment in the RA provides the Government the benefits of his service for the same period he would have served had he been ordered to active duty as a result of breaching his ROTC contract; had he elected an expeditious call to active duty to repay his debt for breaching his ROTC contract, he would have been assigned against the needs of the Army, in pay grade E-1, and not allowed any enlistment options/incentives.  However, he enlisted in the RA in the pay grade of E-3, was authorized a $20,000.00 enlistment bonus, and a $67,824.00 ACF incentive.  

3.  The prospect of negating the applicant's debt for a free education he received from the Army without becoming an officer, plus allowing him to receive enlistment incentives would be a windfall.  Therefore, given the applicant's disenrollment from the ROTC program was based on his undesirable character (misconduct), and the amount of his enlistment incentives it would not be appropriate to grant the requested relief in this case.  


BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___x____  ___x____  ___x____  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.




      _______x _   _______   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080003559



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080003559


2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1