IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  2 November 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100010440 


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, reduction of her Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) scholarship debt from $50,246.50 to $37,684.88.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, an appeal board determined that both she and the Army ROTC program at the University of Notre Dame (UND) were at fault in causing her disenrollment from the ROTC program.  The board stated she should repay 75 percent (%) or $37,684.88 back to the U.S. Government based on the finding of the Investigating Officer (IO) noted in Section IV (Findings) and the firm belief, after hearing sworn testimony, that earlier intervention in the form of career guidance and cadre counseling would have prevented additional financial liability, but still recognizing contractual obligations that were not met.  She attended the appeal board and feels she should not have to pay the full amount of tuition based on the findings of that board.

3.  She further states, in effect, her contract stated she must maintain at least a minimum GPA (grade point average) of 2.0 for her Army ROTC courses and in her major.  If this GPA is not achieved and maintained it could lead to disenrollment from the Army ROTC.  Her transcripts show she never achieved the GPA to be admitted into higher level nursing school classes.  Thus the ROTC program at UND should have noted this earlier which would have led to earlier disenrollment, thus meaning less money owed.  She is asking for relief from repayment of one year of tuition because she should have never started her sophomore year of her scholarship and the Army should have recognized it, as did the Chair and Associate Professor, College of Nursing, Saint Mary's College.
4.  She provides copies of a DA Form 597-3 (Army Senior ROTC Scholarship Cadet Contract); an unofficial Saint Mary's College transcript; two letters from the Chair and Associate Professor, Saint Mary's College; a DA Form 1574 (Report of Proceedings by IO/Board of Officers; an IO Results Rebuttal Opportunity memorandum; her recommendation and disenrollment memoranda; and her dispute/appeal to the U.S. Army Cadet Command.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

Counsel defers requests and statement to the applicant and provides no additional documentation in support the application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's records show she enlisted as a cadet on 23 August 2005, contracted under the ROTC Scholarship Cadet Program, for a period of 4 years, with a completion date of 17 May 2009.

2.  The DA Form 597-3, Part I (Agreement of the Department of the Army) specifies the Army agreed to provide the following funds:

* tuition and educational fees up to an annual amount of $20,000.00
* a flat rate of $900.00 (may increase during the period of this contract) reimbursement on an annual basis for textbooks and laboratory expenses
* a monthly subsistence allowance

3.  The DA Form 597-3, Item 2d, specifies the individual agrees to maintain, at a minimum, a cumulative academic GPA of 2.0 on a 4.0 or equivalent scale.  Item 2d also specifies she was required by her academic major or by the school attending to maintain a higher cumulative and semester or quarter GPA and to maintain that higher standard until the completion of the academic requirements for her degree.  The individual must understand and agree that failure to maintain the minimum academic GPA could subject them to disenrollment from the ROTC program.

4.  The DA Form 597-3, Item 5 (Terms of Disenrollment), specifies that once disenrolled from the ROTC program for breach of contractual terms, the individual must agree to serve on enlisted active duty or agree to reimburse the U.S. Government for the education assistance in lieu of being ordered to active duty.  

5.  She provided copies of two letters from the Chair and Associate Professor, Saint Mary's College.  The first letter, dated 31 July 2007, advised the applicant she had a minimum science prerequisite GPA of 2.5 or higher in order to be admitted into the upper level nursing major at the end of the sophomore year.  At the end of her Spring 2007 semester, she had a science prerequisite GPA of 1.55 when the two grades for Chemistry 124 are averaged (D and C+).  The second letter (undated) advised her that she had a 1.93 science prerequisite GPA and the requirement was 2.5.  She was also advised she needed to earn at least an "A" in both Microbiology and Nursing 224 to be admitted to the upper division nursing or a 3.64 average in those 2 courses.

6.  She submitted a copy of her Saint Mary's College Transcript issued on 7 January 2008.  The transcript shows in Fall 2005 she was in good standing and attained a 2.47 GPA.  In Spring 2006 she was in good standing and attained a 1.72 GPA, in Spring 2007 she was in good standing and attained a 2.58 GPA, and in Fall 2007 she was in good standing and attained a 2.38 GPA.  The transcript shows her overall GPA was 2.26.  The transcript does not reflect her science prerequisite GPA's.

7.  A board of officers convened on 7 April 2008.  The board affirmed the applicant received advanced educational assistance in the form of ROTC scholarship monies in the amount of $50,246.50.  The board also affirmed, based on the evidence presented and witness testimony, she failed to complete her academic requirements.  The board found the UND ROTC program failed to produce semester counseling statements on the applicant prior to December 2007, which it was believed could have assisted the applicant in determining her suitability for nursing.  In addition, witness testimony provided that all nurse specific counseling at UND was handled by Captain A------, who admitted in witness testimony that it was tough to get around to all approximately 160 Nurse Cadets in the 9th Brigade on a regular basis.  The board stated it believed that earlier intervention in the form of career guidance and cadre counseling would have prevented additional financial liability, but still recognizing contractual obligations that were not met.

8.  The board of officers recommended the applicant repay 75% or $37,684.88 back to the U.S. Government based on the findings and after hearing sworn testimony in the case.  The board also recommended the applicant be disenrolled from the ROTC program in accordance with Army Regulation 145-1 (Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps Program:  Organization, Administration, and Training), paragraph 3-43a(16) and 3-44b(3) and be released from the ROTC contractual obligation, but remain indebted to the U.S. Government in the amount of 75% or $37,684.88.

9.  On 30 April 2008, the Professor of Military Science, U.S. Army ROTC Battalion, UND, recommended the applicant be disenrolled from the ND ROTC program because she had not been admitted into her upper division nursing program at Saint Mary's College.  Her low grades in pre-nursing courses also did not make it possible for her to transfer into another nursing program at either one of their partnership schools or at a different university.  The memorandum also stated the applicant withdrew from the ND ROTC program and Saint Mary's College rather than continuing to work on improving her grades or changing majors.  She also indicated at that time she did not want to seek a commission into another branch of the Army other than nursing.

10.  The memorandum also stated the applicant received scholarship benefits through Fall 2007.  The ROTC official concurred with the recommendation that the applicant be released from ROTC and from ROTC contractual obligation and separation vice being ordered to active duty.  The ROTC official non-concurred on the amount of the indebtedness and instead recommended repayment of 100% or $50,246.50.  Entering fall semester 2007, the applicant was meeting all scholarship retention standards and still had a chance to gain admittance into Saint Mary's School of Nursing if she performed well academically.  Therefore, there was no rationale or existing regulation for taking her off of scholarship as implied in Major B--------'s recommendation to only repay 75% of benefits received.  The applicant also understood her academic standing and requirements of the nursing program throughout her time in the program and received specific counseling from Saint Mary's School of Nursing and the brigade nurse counselor, Captain A------.  The ROTC official further stated that although it was unfortunate the applicant was not able to gain admittance to a nursing program, he did not find that mitigating circumstances existed that warranted relief of indebtedness.

11.  By memorandum, dated 14 May 2008, the applicant was advised of the opportunity to rebut the findings and recommendations of the board.

12.  She further provided a copy of a memorandum from Headquarters, U.S. Army Cadet Command, Fort Monroe, VA, dated 15 September 2008, subject:  Disenrollment from the USAR ROTC Program.  It stated that the applicant was disenrolled from the ROTC program under the provisions of Army Regulation 145-1, paragraphs 3-43a(16).  Disenrollment was due to a breach of the ROTC contract based on her withdrawal from the ROTC program.  The memorandum further advised that her total amount of educational assistance amounted to $50.246.50.  She was informed of her options.  There is no evidence she completed the election addendum to repay the total amount or pay the amount in monthly installments.

13.  In a memorandum to the U.S. Army Cadet Command, dated 27 October 2008, she stated she wished to appeal/dispute the accuracy and amount of debt owed.  She also stated the basis for her appeal rested in concurrence with the findings of the impartial board conducted on 7 April 2008.  She further stated the Army and her parents did not want to give up on her and she was not going to quit.  Her situation became unattainable and she is willing to bear that responsibility, but believes, most respectfully, that the Army must continue to recognize or accept some responsibility as well.

14.  In a memorandum, dated 30 December 2008, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) stated the applicant must select one of the following options within 30 days:  (1) accept readmission as a non-scholarship cadet in a major other than nursing and be commissioned within       1  year of completing MS IV year, or (2) transfer to the USAR in pay grade E-1 and be ordered to active duty for 3 years, or (3) agree to the recoupment of her educational expenses in the amount of $50,246.50 and a debt be established with the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) to pursue collection.  The Assistant Secretary directed, as a final decision, if the applicant failed to elect an option within 30 days, the Cadet Command establish a debt with DFAS of $50,246.50 plus any interest that may had accrued.  

15.  On 14 December 2009, the applicant elected to repay the total amount owed of $50,249.50, in monthly installment, plus interest on the amount owed.

16.  Army Regulation 145-1 prescribes polices and general procedures for administering the Army's Senior ROTC Program.  This regulation specifies as part of a scholarship enlistment in the ROTC, an individual must sign a DA Form 597-3, which is the agreement between the Army and a potential ROTC cadet.  The form contains the promises made between the Army and the potential cadet, and includes what action the Army will take in the event that a cadet fails to successfully complete the terms of the contract.  Paragraphs 3-43a(16) and 3-44b(3) specifies that non-scholarship and scholarship cadets will be disenrolled for breach of contract and for termination of a 4-year scholarship.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was accepted into an Army ROTC scholarship program in August 2005.  In July 2007, she was advised of her prerequisite GPA for admission into the nursing program at the end of her sophomore year.  At that time, she was also advised of her GPA and low grades for chemistry.  On 7 April 2008, a board affirmed she had failed to complete her academic requirements and recommended her disenrollment from ROTC.  The board recommended she only repay 75% or $37,684.88 instead of the 100% or $50.246.50 back to the U.S. Government as it believed that earlier career guidance intervention would have prevented additional financial liability.

2.  In April 2008, a UND ROTC official stated the applicant received scholarship benefits through Fall 2007.  The applicant understood her academic standing and requirements of the nursing program throughout her time in the program and received appropriate counseling.   She was also meeting all scholarship retention standards and still had a chance to gain admittance into the nursing program.  Therefore, the UND ROTC official non-concurred on the amount of indebtedness and instead recommended repayment of the entire amount.  She was subsequently disenrolled in September 2008 due to breach of contract based on her withdrawal from the ROTC program.  She was offered the opportunity to repay the debt of $50,246.50 in a lump sum or repay the debt in monthly installments.  In October 2008, she disputed/appealed the accuracy and amount of debt owed based on the findings of the board of officers.  

3.  Upon acceptance of her ROTC contract, she was aware of the GPA requirements for both the scholarship and admittance to the School of Nursing.  It was her responsibility to determine whether she was able to earn the level of science grades needed.  It was noted that entering fall semester 2007, the applicant was meeting all scholarship retention standards and still had a chance to gain admittance into Saint Mary's School of Nursing if she performed well academically.  Therefore, there was no rationale or existing regulation for taking her off of scholarship at that time as implied in the board of officer's recommendation.  

4.  The evidence shows she was clearly aware of and understood her academic standing and requirements prior to the start of the fall semester 2007.  It appears that it was not until after the fall semester that she admitted to herself she could not meet those requirements and then withdrew from the ROTC program.  There is insufficient evidence to show the school was more responsible than she was for an earlier intervention which could have prevented additional financial liability. 
There is also no evidence to show she was unjustly allowed to start her sophomore year on scholarship because her inability to raise her GPA was not recognized by the ROTC program sooner.

5.  Her appeal/dispute of the amount of her debt was denied and she elected to repay the total amount of $50,246.50.  As a result, a debt in the full amount was established by DFAS.  In her case, she received monetary scholarship benefits from 2005 to 2007 totaling $50,246.50.  Therefore, there is no evidentiary basis to support her contention this amount should be reduced.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting her request.
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)                                         AR20100010440



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100010440



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1