IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	26 August 2009    

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090002961 


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 reconsideration of the Board’s October 2006 denial of her previous request to cancel her Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) debt which she incurred as a result of her disenrollment from ROTC for breach of contract in October 2004.

2.  The applicant reiterates, in a February 2007 statement to the Board, her original argument that she did not breach her contract with the United States Army.  She states, as noted previously, that the officer who investigated her removal from the ROTC program and the PMS (Professor of Military Science), Colonel M. C_____, both concluded she did not breach her contract and that she should be released from her ROTC contractual obligation without recoupment of her scholarship funds.

3.  The applicant also reemphasized in her request for reconsideration that the discovery, in April 2006, that she suffered from Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) explained why she was not suited for the Army and that the condition directly impacted her ability to meet the challenges of dealing with military customs and courtesies.

4.  The applicant notes that she is now under the care of a psychologist in order to work on life skills and behavior modifications as well as under the care of a psychiatrist for the dispensing and monitoring of her medication.


5.  The applicant states that she was sent to the health center at Texas Christian College (TCU) because she was having the same kinds of problems in her nursing program that she had with the ROTC program.  She stated that she received an “incomplete” for her last clinical rotation and that following her diagnosis of ADD, being placed on medication, and working very hard on her own and with her psychologist, she was able to attend the summer term in 2006 and completed her nursing program “with high academic honors on August 11, 2006.”

6.  She states that in being diagnosed with ADD it was determined that she has a different way of thinking and complying with guidelines she does not agree with or completely understand.  She indicated that it was explained to her that she comes across as being uncooperative, disrespectful, very blunt and to the point; essentially all the issues that resulted in her removal from the ROTC program.  She states that the undiagnosed disorder explained why she would ask a series of rapid-fire questions, appear not to be listening or following commands, interrupting and challenging others.  She states that with supportive help she is a highly functioning and highly intelligent person.  She notes that her problem was not detected earlier because she learned to compensate on her own her entire life.  

7.  The applicant states she understands the Army does not allow persons with ADD or persons on medication for ADD to serve in the Army.  She states she was not found to have an undesirable character or to have breached her contract, rather, she was found to have an inaptitude for military service due to her unaddressed ADD.  She maintains that after being on a low dose of medication she was able to finish her last semester at TCU, and follow commands, comply with orders, and follow customs and courtesies within her work environment all of which should serve as proof that the issues she faced with ROTC military customs and courtesies were beyond her knowledge and control.

8.  In a subsequent letter to the Defense Finance and Accounting System (DFAS), dated 7 December 2008, she further argued against some of the conclusions made during the Board’s initial deliberation.  In that statement she notes:

	a.  While the Board concluded that she may have come to the program with false pretenses, in reality, she states that she was 18 years old, had never put on LBE (load bearing equipment) or Kevlar, and that the assumption regarding where she would treat patients came to her directly from an ROTC official.  She states her father was present during that discussion and could attest to the validity of her argument.
	b.  While the Board noted that she expressed doubts about her abilities to serve as an officer in the Army at the end of her freshman year she was assured by two military officers (cadre) that she should continue in the program.  She states her mother was present at this meeting and could attest to the encouragement to remain in the program.

	c.  While the Board concluded that in spite of her undiagnosed ADD she was able to cooperate when she chose and cited her academics, Frog Camp, and sorority activities, the applicant stated she would be happy to provide documentation that she did not rise to her potential in any area.

		(1)  She cites her grade point average (GPA) of 3.0 resulted from the fact that she had to spend more time studying than did her peers and had the help of tutors.  She maintains that had she been diagnosed and treated she would most certainly been closer to a 4.0 GPA.  She states that she was pulled from her nursing clinical in the spring of 2006 for the very same reasons that the ROTC program was concerned about and only after being tested and evaluated was she allowed to attend remedial nursing skills practice sessions.

		(2)  Regarding Frog Camp, she states that can also be said to have been unsuccessful for her.  She states she applied for three years in a row and was only added as an alternative the last time around and was not chosen as a leader.

		(3)  In reference to her participation in a sorority she states she was never chosen as an officer or even put on a hearing board.  She maintains in hindsight that this was likely due to the fact that she responded inappropriately to a lot of situations with her sorority sisters and was unable to understand their point of view in many instances.  

9.  In a recent letter to the Board, dated 13 March 2009, the applicant outlined the extent of her debt and its impact on her life.  In that same statement she also suggested that if the Board would not dismiss her entire debt that consideration at least be given to waiving the debt associated with her freshman year in college.  She notes that it would only be fair to waive that portion of the debt in view of the fact that all freshmen had the option of dropping after their freshman year without an obligation.





10.  The applicant provides her 2 February 2007 statement requesting reconsideration of the Board’s October 2006 denial of her original petition, a copy of her 7 December 2008 self-authored statement to DFAS, and two statements, one dated 6 March 2008 and a second dated 13 March 2009, regarding the status of her debt, the impact the debt has had on her credit report, and the garnishment of her federal tax return.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20060001172, on 31 October 2006.

2.  The applicant’s original request for reconsideration was authored in February 2007 which was within the 1-year requirement for eligibility for reconsideration (but not received in the ABCMR until around December 2008).  In that request the applicant put forth additional arguments which were not previously considered by the Board, including her argument that contrary to the Board’s conclusion her ADD did affect other areas of her life in a similar manner as it affected her ability to adapt to the structure and requirements of the ROTC program.

3.  The applicant enrolled as an ROTC scholarship cadet in the fall of 2002 at TCU in a nursing program.  Documents available to the Board suggest that within a month of beginning the ROTC program she was being counseled by ROTC leadership for a variety of issues including attendance at physical training sessions and the need for her to goal-focus.  

4.  In the October 2002 counseling document the counselor, a captain, noted the applicant was “having a hard time adjusting to ROTC” and that wear of the uniform, specifically standards for the hair and proper wear of the PT uniform were discussed.  The captain noted the applicant was in a sorority, “which takes up much of her time, as well as student government.”  She noted the applicant “needs assistance with time management and positive study habits,” that she was having difficulty with anatomy and physiology.  The captain noted the applicant stated she wanted to be an Army Nurse and the opportunities, assignments, and specialty courses were discussed.  The counselor encouraged the applicant to look to other cadets as mentors and role models and recommended she interact more with the cadets in her military science class.



5.  In May 2004 the applicant was notified that action was being initiated to disenroll her from ROTC due to undesirable traits of character and indifference or lack of interest.  Both the investigating officer and the applicant’s PMS recommended the applicant be removed from the ROTC program but both recommended she not be held liable for scholarship reimbursement.  Notwithstanding the recommendation of the investigating officer and the PMS, the applicant’s brigade commander recommended that she be disenrolled with full monetary payback and ultimately, in October 2004 the applicant was notified by U.S. Army Cadet Command that she was disenrolled from the program and required to repay the cost of advanced education assistance provided by the Army as a result of breaching her contract.

6.  In May 2006, according to the applicant, she was diagnosed with ADD/ADHD and in August 2006 completed requirements for her nursing degree.  Evidence of her diagnosis was included with documents considered by the Board during its original deliberations in October 2006. 

7.  Paragraph 2-29 of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), effective 29 September 2003 and in effect at the time the applicant was disenrolled from ROTC, states that specific academic skills defects, chronic history of academic skills or perceptual defects, secondary to organic or functional mental disorders that interfere with work or school after age 12 and current use of medication to improve or maintain academic skills can be causes for rejection for appointment, enlistment, and induction.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Clearly the applicant had trouble living up to the expectations and rigors of the ROTC program.  However, there is no evidence her undiagnosed ADD/ADHD impacted her ability to comply with the program.  Rather, it is clear from the record that the applicant was performing satisfactorily from an academic viewpoint.  Even after being disenrolled from ROTC, she continued to do well for the next two years until she received an incomplete on a course and did some remedial work.  An incomplete for a course can be given for a variety of reasons, including for an excused absence or illness.  She offers no reason for the incomplete.  Nonetheless, this would not meet the standard of “chronic history of academic skills.”

2.  If there were any doubt as to whether, after completing all but one course required for her nursing degree, she required medication to complete her last course (with a 3.0 GPA), she would have certainly been a strong candidate for a waiver to permit her appointment as an Army officer.  

3.  When the applicant was disenrolled from ROTC in 2004, the regulation regarding standards of medical fitness (Army Regulation 40-501) did not prohibit appointment, enlistment, or induction, based on ADD or ADHD.  The regulation, then and now, would not apply to behavioral issues such as attendance at physical training formations, failure to observe military customs and protocol, and missing a scheduled function by citing such things as sorority functions and lack of sleep as an excuse.

4.  Reliance on the version of Army Regulation 40-501 that became effective in 2006, after the applicant’s scheduled graduation, is also misplaced.  The applicant failed her final nursing rotation, thereby requiring summer school and an August 2006 graduation.  Had she still been an ROTC student, she at that point would have been in breach of the terms of her ROTC contract requiring completion of her coursework within four academic years.  This lends greater support for a waiver argument.  If the Army had granted her additional time to complete this last rotation, it makes sense it might have also waived ADD/ADHD as a bar to appointment as an officer.

5.  There is no evidence that the applicant had an academic skills defect at the time of her disenrollment from ROTC in 2004 or at the time of her graduation from nursing school in 2006.  Knowledge of her reported ADD in 2004 would not have been in contravention of either accession or retention standards in effect at that time.  It would also not have been disqualifying in 2006 and would not have precluded an appointment as an officer on completion of her ROTC sponsored education.

6.  The applicant’s argument that she was not as successful in other areas of her life as the Board noted in its original deliberation is also without foundation.  There is no evidence in available records which confirms the extent to which the applicant participated in these other activities and no indication that her ADD/ADHD was the focus of behavior issues which precluded her from successful participation in the ROTC program.  

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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20060001172, dated 31 October 2006.



      ____________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)                                         AR20090002961





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090002961



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1