BOARD DATE:	  20 February 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130011586 


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 reinstatement in the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) program at the University of Puerto Rico – Mayaguez and commissioning as an officer in the U.S. Army.

2.  The applicant defers comments to his counsel. 

3.  The applicant defers submission of supporting documents to counsel. 

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests that the applicant be reinstated in the ROTC program at the University of Puerto Rico – Mayaguez and that he be commissioned as an officer in the U.S. Army.

2.  Counsel states, in effect, that disenrollment proceedings were initiated approximately 1 month before graduation and the applicant was not afforded due process in the course of the investigation and board proceedings.  Counsel continues by stating that the assistant Professor of Military Science (PMS) who was tasked with conducting an impartial inquiry into a single alleged instance of misconduct subsequently and surreptitiously included twelve additional allegations of purported misconduct for the board’s consideration after the applicant, who was unrepresented by counsel, had been notified of only a single allegation of disrespect to an officer.  The board subsequently assembled an incoherent and cursory record showing no consideration of any matters on the applicant’s behalf.  Counsel goes on to state that it is unjust and in error to dismiss the applicant from ROTC immediately prior to his commissioning date on false allegations with little or no consideration given to his record of performance and ability to complete the remaining requirements to commission.  According, his dismissal should be overturned and he should be reinstated in the ROTC program.

3.  Counsel provides an 11-page brief explaining the applicant’s application and a table of contents of documents provided with the application. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was serving in year four (MSIV) of his Simultaneous Membership Program (SMP) non-scholarship ROTC contract on 13 April 2012 when he was notified by his commander that action was being initiated to disenroll him from the ROTC program for misconduct due to being disrespectful toward superiors during training.  He was also advised of his rights in regard to legal counsel and his right to submit a statement in his own behalf.  The applicant elected to request a personal appearance at a hearing and indicated that he declined a call to active duty. 

2.  On 2 May 2012, the applicant appeared before the board without counsel and was advised of his rights.  The president of the board gave the applicant the opportunity to answer questions and to give the board a clear understanding of the situations and explain his point of view to the board.  The board also touched on the fact that the applicant had been counseled regarding his absences.  After hearing all testimony and reviewing the available evidence, the board found that the applicant at no time took ownership of his faults and constantly responded with excuses why he was not at fault with all accusations.  He placed himself as a victim of the circumstances and in the opinion of the board showed that he was immature and did not understand the Army values, especially given that he provided false information on his sworn statement.  The board felt he showed a lack of interest for the program and that it would be a discredit to the ROTC program and the Army if he was retained.  The board recommended that he be disenrolled.  The applicant was provided a copy of the proceedings and elected not to submit a response in writing.

3.  On 23 July 2012, the U.S. Army Cadet Command at Fort Knox, Kentucky directed that the applicant be disenrolled from the ROTC program and indicated that his disenrollment was based on his undesirable character as demonstrated by frequent absences from military training.  He was to be released to his USAR unit in accordance with his ROTC contract.

4.  There is no evidence in the available records showing that he appealed his dismissal to the U.S. Army Cadet Command. 

5.  On 21 May 2013, he was discharged from the U.S. Army Reserve and his service was uncharacterized.

6.  Army Regulation 145-1 (Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps Program Organization, Administration and Training) provides, in part, that a nonscholarship cadet may be disenrolled by the PMS.  Scholarship cadets may only be disenrolled by the Commanding General, U.S. Army Cadet Command.  Disenrollment authority does not include the discharge authority for SMP participants.  Non-scholarship and scholarship cadets may be disenrolled for misconduct demonstrated by disorderly or disrespectful conduct in the ROTC classroom or during training and indifferent attitude or lack of interest in military training as evidence by frequent absences.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contentions and supporting documents have been noted and appear to lack merit. 

2.  The applicant was afforded the opportunity to consult with and to be represented by counsel and elected to decline such representation.  He was present during the hearing and was afforded the opportunity to present his side of the events of which he was accused.  The fact that he did not have counsel does not imply that he was denied due process as his current counsel contends.

3.  It is also apparent that based on the evidence provided in this case that the applicant was aware of the reasons for his disenrollment.  It is also noted that the PMS had the authority to disenroll the applicant because he was a non-scholarship cadet; however, his case was forwarded to the U.S. Army Cadet Command for review and approval.

4.  Notwithstanding that the U.S. Army Cadet Command directed his disenrollment based on his undesirable character as demonstrated by frequent absences from military training instead of misconduct, in reading the transcript of proceedings, it is apparent that the applicant had been counseled regarding his absences.  In any event, the PMS could have disenrolled him for misconduct.

5.  While the applicant has not provided and the records do not contain a copy of his ROTC contract, there is insufficient evidence to show that the applicant was not afforded due process or that he was unjustly disenrolled from the ROTC program.
6.  Accordingly, there appears to be no basis to grant his request for reinstatement in the ROTC program or to grant him a commission.

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)                                         AR20130011586





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130011586



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1