IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 9 September 2014
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140008975
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 forgiveness of his educational assistance debt in the amount of $171,092.34 (plus interest) and to rescind any recoupment actions for the period he attended the U.S. Military Academy (USMA).
2. He states it was determined prior to his resignation that he did not meet the requirements for commissioning under the provisions of chapter 2, Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness).
3. The applicant provides:
* an extract of his military personnel record
* USMA nomination packet
* orders
* two DD Forms 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* USMA Form 5-50 (Oath of Allegiance)
* a psychiatric letter, dated 20 November 2012
* a Standard Form (SF) 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care)
* his unqualified resignation packet
* a DD Form 785 (Record of Disenrollment from Officer Candidate - Type Training)
* a memorandum, subject: Separation Medical Examination, dated
3 December 2012
* a memorandum, subject: Recoupment of Educational Assistance Costs - (applicant), dated 30 January 2013
* an Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Boards) Investigation Packet
* a memorandum from the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, dated
29 March 2013
* a letter from the U.S. Department of Treasury, Debt Management Services, dated 25 April 2014
* USMA academic records
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 June 2007 for 3 years.
2. On 6 February 2009, his company commander submitted a memorandum for the Directorate of Admissions, USMA in which he strongly recommended the applicant's admission into USMA as a member of Class 2013.
3. He was honorably released from active duty on 28 June 2009 for the purpose of entering USMA. He was appointed as a cadet on 29 June 2009.
4. A memorandum from the U.S. Army Medical Department Activity, West Point, New York, dated 20 November 2012, shows the attending psychiatrist had been working with the applicant for 2 months. It was noted:
* the applicant had a history of suicidal behavior that did not meet the commissioning standards of Army Regulation 40-501, paragraph 2-27j
* that given his current symptoms, the doctor would not recommend waiving the standard
* the doctor did not think future military service would be in the best interest of the applicant or the Army
* however, he did meet the retention standards of chapter 3 of Army Regulation 40-501 - therefore referral to a medical board was not indicated
5. Chronological Records of Medical Care that show his psychiatric treatment for the 2 months prior to 20 November 2012 are not available for review. However, an SF 600 shows on that 21 November 2012 he was diagnosed with major depressive disorder; rule out post-traumatic stress disorder; and alcohol abuse. The exact date of these diagnoses is not listed. This report also indicates the major depressive disorder was listed in Axis I of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition (DSM-IV) TR criteria. A "65" was listed in Axis V.
a. Current History: He was a 23-year old prior service cadet with a long history of past psychiatric treatment for depression who was referred for evaluation by his psychiatrist at USMA. He was currently enrolled in the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) and had been diagnosed with alcohol dependence.
b. Past Psychiatric History: He underwent counseling when his parents divorced at age 5. He received treatment for depression at age 12 and was hospitalized after attempting suicide by overdose. He attempted suicide again at the age of 17. He was treated with multiple medications between the ages of 12 and 18; however, he does not recall most of the medications he was treated with and said that none of them were effective.
c. Oral Admission: The applicant reported that he had been experiencing intermittent episodes of depression since childhood. He was able to go a few months "feeling fine" and then "almost for no reason" would feel highly stressed and overwhelmed. During those periods he would isolate himself and have difficulty feeling motivated or interested in normal activities. He also reported that he chronically thought about suicide and those thoughts intensified during the down periods.
d. History of Multiple Traumatic Events: The applicant described having nightmares and intrusive thoughts and said he generally did not like to be touched. He did not want to discuss certain events from his past in detail but did allude to a history of emotional and physical abuse. When contemplating suicide, he did not think about specific ways to hurt himself, but rather thought about the idea of suicide in a way that he said was often "very rational."
e. Family History: His father suffered from depression and committed suicide in 2011. His mother is a sociopath and both his paternal grandparents are "off" and were physically abusive. He also has an uncle who was a "serial rapist."
f. Social History: The applicant was born in California and primarily grew up in Florida and Alabama. After his parents divorced when he was 5 years old, he lived in foster care until the age of 7. He later went to live with his father who suffered from depression. He reported being physically and emotionally abused and his sisters being sexually abused. His mother is a sociopath whom he does not have a relationship with.
g. Past Substance History: Significant use of alcohol and no use of illegal substances.
h. Treatment Plan: He was taking Effexor to address his depression and Ambien to stabilize his sleep. It was planned to gradually increase the Effexor XR to 150 milligrams. He did not pose a threat to himself or others at the time and it was recommended he continue with therapy at "CPD" and with treatment at ASAP. It was noted that the applicant had an Axis I condition that did not meet the commissioning standards of chapter 2, Army Regulation 40-501 and it was not recommended to waive that standard. Despite his history of suicidal behavior and his ongoing depression, "the cadet has been able to maintain adequate performance and continues to meet the retention standards of chapter 3 of Army Regulation 40-501."
6. On 16 November 2012, the applicant submitted a voluntary request for an "Unqualified Resignation" under the provisions of paragraph 7-5, Army Regulation 210-26 (United States Military Academy). He listed the reasons for his request and provided examples in each.
a. He did not wish to be in any way associated with an institution which willfully disregards the Constitution of the United States of America by enforcing polices which run counter to the same.
b. He no longer had the motivation to remain as a member of the Corps of Cadets, which has a strong culture of disrespect toward general military bearing and conduct.
c. He did not want to remain a member of an organization with a long history of discrimination against minority demographics which maintains leadership that is not genuinely interested in repairing these issues.
d. He was concerned for his personal psychological well being. The absurdities of the institution have exacerbated his depression and anxiety, and he genuinely believed that once he was away from that place he would be able to recover much easier.
7. In his request for unqualified resignation he stated, in part, that he understood that, rather than order active duty service, the Army may require that he repay the cost of his educational expenses in accordance with Section 2005, Title 10, U.S. Code. He had been counseled and understood that recoupment for reimbursement of the cost of his education while at USMA could result from his resignation.
8. The applicant's cadet chain of command recommended approval of his resignation request. All members noted that he should not be readmitted into USMA or into the Reserve Officers Training Corps and that his potential for any further service (including enlisted) was extremely limited due to his medical issues. It was also noted that his psychological issues became apparent to his "TAC" chain of command shortly after he began his first class year.
9. The Superintendent, USMA, a lieutenant general, recommended approval of the applicant's unqualified resignation and that he be separated from the USMA and discharged from the U.S. Army with an honorable discharge. He stated that the applicant should not be ordered to active duty or transferred to the U.S Army Reserve Component, as a call to active service was not appropriate. He also recommended that recoupment of the applicant's educational expenses at the Academy be waived.
10. A memorandum for the Superintendent, USMA, dated 28 January 2013, subject: Separation of Cadet (applicant), Class of 2013, shows the Assistant Secretary of the Army (ASA), Manpower and Reserve Affairs approved the recommendation to separate the applicant from USMA and discharge him from the U.S. Army with an Honorable Discharge Certificate. However, the request to waive recoupment of educational expenses was disapproved. The ASA, Manpower and Reserve Affairs directed the staff of USMA to conduct a recoupment investigation under the provisions of Army Regulation 15-6 within 120 days of the date of the memorandum.
11. Accordingly, on 28 January 2013, the applicant was discharged with an honorable characterization of service. Item 25 (Separation Authority) contained Army Regulation 612-205 (Appointment and Separation of Service Academy Attendees), Table 3, Rule 9 and Army Regulation 210-26, paragraph 7-5. He had completed a total of 5 years, 7 months, and
8 days of active service.
12. On 4 February 2013, an investigating officer (IO) was appointed to conduct an informal investigation to determine the amount and validity of the applicant's alleged debt to the United States Government. The IO was given 30 calendar days to conclude the investigation. It was directed that the investigation would result in appropriate findings on the following questions and based on the findings, the IO would recommend whether the applicant should be required to reimburse the Government for the cost of his education:
a. Whether the applicant was on notice concerning the military service obligation and the financial recoupment requirement if he failed to fulfill that military obligation;
b. Whether the applicant, in fact, failed to fulfill the military service obligation;
c. Whether the applicant's separation from USMA and subsequent inability to complete the period of military service specified in the Agreement to Serve was the result of misconduct, a volitional act or omission, or due to no fault of the applicant (e.g., medical condition); and
d. Whether the amount of financial recoupment (the cost of education) is rationally based.
13. On 8 March 2013, the IO completed his findings and recommendations for the Army Regulation 15-6 investigation.
a. The applicant signed a valid service agreement on 29 June 2009 that put him on notice that if he failed to complete the course of instruction at the USMA, he may be required to reimburse the Government for the total cost of the education provided to him. He also failed to fulfill his active duty obligation.
b. He voluntarily resigned, thereby failing to complete his course of instruction. He acknowledged that recoupment of his education expense could occur as a result of this action. However, while the applicant's resignation was volitional, his underlying medical condition which would have precluded commissioning was not volitional.
c. The applicant met the medical fitness standards for retention as set forth in chapter 3 of Army Regulation 40-501 and so was fit to complete his course of instruction. However, he did not meet the standards for appointment as a commissioned officer under the provisions of Army Regulation 40-501, paragraph 2-27j and therefore would not have been commissioned at the conclusion of his course of instruction.
d. Absent his resignation, it was reasonable to conclude that he would not have been commissioned and would have been honorably discharged instead. Had this been the case, the U.S. Government would have no evident grounds for recoupment.
e. The United States spent $170,409.00 educating the applicant and this amount was rationally based as calculated by the Directorate of Resource Management.
f. The IO recommended that no recoupment be sought for the applicant's cost of education while enrolled at the USMA due to his ineligibility for commissioned, that had been established at the time of his resignation.
14. A letter, dated 8 March 2013, from the IO to the applicant shows the IO had sent a previous letter on 20 February 2013 asking the applicant to acknowledge receipt of the notification of the AR 15-6 Investigation. The applicant was to indicate whether or not he disputed the validity of the debt incurred as a result of his resignation and to respond within 10 calendar days. The IO noted he received the applicant's response on 7 March 2013. The applicant stated in his dispute:
a. Prior to his resignation, it was established by his psychiatrist that he was non-commissionable for psychiatric reasons. However, he was still encouraged to remain at USMA through graduation with a tax-payer funded education, no debt, and no obligation to serve in the military.
b. After his resignation the situation changed and the decision was made to seek recoupment for his time at West Point. He was advised by legal counsel that due to the nature of his resignation he was protected from retribution under the Military Whistle Blower Protection Act.
c. Multiple retired and active duty Judge Advocate General (JAG) officers have confirmed that there is substantial justification to bring a lawsuit against Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) if recoupment is pursued. Several organizations have also volunteered to provide necessary legal services to contest these charges in court.
d. Should it be found that he is legally bound to repay the expenses incurred from his time at West Point, he contests the validity of the amount of the charges. While at West Point he observed an internal report which indicated the accumulated marginal expenses of a single cadet from R-day through graduation. The cost was grossly inflated when compared to other superior colleges and universities.
e. If the sum of $170,409 is legitimately justified, he is requesting to see a by-item list of expenses and justification of each expense.
f. The climate he experienced while at West Point may be easily classified as a hostile work environment. One of the most colorful statements that he heard from several of his peers was a posting on a social media website that received nearly 100 "likes" was "We should drag him into central area and burn him alive. Maybe then he'll know what an inquisition is like."
15. On 12 March 2013, a legal review of the Army Regulation 15-6 Investigation pertaining to the applicant was conducted. It was concluded that the investigation complied with all legal requirements and there were no procedural errors or irregularities with any material and no adverse effect on the applicant's substantive rights. Sufficient evidence supported the findings of the IO and the recommendations were legally unobjectionable.
16. On 29 March 2013, a memorandum from the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1 to the Superintendent, USMA, West Point states the AR 15-6 findings were carefully reviewed. However, the G-1 found the debt to be valid and directed the applicant be ordered to repay educational benefits in the amount of $170,409.00 with interest if applicable. The G-1 requested USMA to take appropriate action to notify the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) to pursue collection of the said amount plus interest and penalties that may have accrued since the debt was originally established.
17. A letter from the Department of Treasury, dated 25 April 2014, written to the applicant shows there was an unpaid delinquent debt owed to Department of Defense (DOD), DFAS in the amount of $171,092.34. Collection action would continue unless he made payment within 10 days from the date of the letter, in the amount of $218,998.20, which included all applicable fess, interest, and penalties, as of that date.
18. During the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Officer Division, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G1 on 22 July 2014. This official stated that in the applicant's resignation request, he acknowledged that if he was not ordered to active duty, the reimbursement provisions of his service agreement would apply.
a. At the time of his request , the Secretary of the Army was the final approval authority for the applicant's resignation under the provisions of Army Regulation 210-26, table 7-2, rule 5. This authority was delegated to the ASA, Manpower and Reserve Affairs by HQDA General Order Number 2012-01.
b. Under DOD Directive (DODD) 1332.23 (Service Academy Disenrollment), paragraph 6.1.1.3, as an exception to the general rule that cadets separated from the service academies will be ordered to active duty, separated cadets who are found to be not suited for enlisted military service, for reasons of demonstrated unsuitability, unfitness, or physical disqualification, shall be discharged from the Army.
c. Further, under the provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, section 2005, when a cadet does not fulfill the terms of his service agreement, he is subject to the uniform repayment provisions of Title 37, U.S. Code, section 303a(e). DODD 1332.23, paragraph 6.1.4.1, the Secretary of the Army may consider "humanitarian reason, military service needs, or other mitigating circumstances for waiving reimbursement charges for disenrolled cadets." This authority has been expressly delegated to the ASA, Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
d. The applicant's separation proceedings conformed with the applicable laws and regulations of the U.S. Government. As a result, the applicant is not entitled to the administrative relief he requests.
19. On 25 July 2014, the applicant was sent a copy of the advisory opinion to provide him an opportunity to submit any comments on his behalf. He responded on 13 August 2014 and stated the argument in the advisory opinion was rationally inconsistent and lacking in equity.
a. He could not have possibly entered into military service whether he had graduated from the USMA or not. Had he remained at West Point until graduation it would have created a significantly greater investment on the part of the U.S. Government with certainty of no return on that investment. As such, his resignation stopped the loss of additional government resources.
b. Cadets who are medically disqualified from service and remain until graduation universally have recoupment costs waived. Knowing this, the Commandant of Cadets at the time of his resignation recommended no recoupment. The IO of his Army Regulation 15-6 Investigation and the current Superintendent, USMA both recommended no recoupment.
c. Seeking recoupment at this point demonstrates a stark deviation from equity and reason and cannot be justified with the argument presented in the advisory opinion.
20. Email correspondence between a Staff Member of this Board, the G-1, ASA, Manpower and Reserve Affairs, and the Superintendent, USMA from 13 May 2014 through 18 August 2014 shows:
a. The original decision to recoup the applicant's education expenses was solely based on his "unqualified resignation," dated 16 November 2012, breaching his signed Service Agreement, dated 29 June 2009. He stated he was concerned for his "personal psychological well being," with no mention of a confirmed medical condition.
b. Email, dated 30 May 2014 and 18 August 2014, from the Superintendent, USMA stated he supported the applicant's request for forgiveness of educational expenses and would appreciate the acceleration of the Board action.
c. On 18 August 2014, an electronic copy of the applicant's cadet record was obtained by this Board to bring this case to a prompt resolution.
21. Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) governs the medical fitness standards for enlistment, induction, and appointment, including officer procurement programs.
a. Chapter 2 implements DODD 6130.3 (Physical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment, and Induction) and DOD Instructions (DODI) 6130.4 (Medical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment, or Induction in the Armed Forces). In part, the standards contained in this chapter are to ensure that individuals are medically capable of satisfactorily completing required training. Medical conditions listed in paragraph 2-3 through 2-32 are disqualifying by virtue of current diagnosis, or for which the candidate has a verified past medical history.
b. Paragraph 2-27j states anyone who has a history of suicidal behavior, including gesture(s) or attempt(s) (300.9), or a history of self-mutilation, does not meet the standard for appointment (commissioning).
c. Chapter 3 gives various medical conditions and physical defects which may render a Soldier unfit for further military service and which fall below the standards required for individuals. These medical conditions and physical defects, individually or in combination, are those that:
(1) Significantly limit or interfere with the Soldier's performance of their duties.
(2) May compromise or aggravate the Soldier's health or well-being if they were to remain in the military Service. This may involve dependence on certain medications, appliances, severe dietary restrictions, or frequent special treatments, or a requirement for frequent clinical monitoring.
(3) May compromise the health or well-being of other Soldiers.
(4) May prejudice the best interests of the Government if the individual were to remain in the military Service.
d. The medical condition(s) listed in paragraph 2-27j of this regulation is/are not contained in chapter 3 and therefore does not meet the criteria for a referral to a medical board.
22. Army Regulation 612-205 (Appointment and Separation of Service Academy Attendees) contains procedures for the separation of cadets from the USMA. Section III provides for the separation of cadets due to physical disability.
a. When separating for physical disability and if the cadet entered the program from an active duty status, convene a medical board to determine if the cadet is physically qualified for retention at USMA and on active duty. The medical report will be sent to HQDA.
b. Cadets disqualified for retention at USMA will be separated from USMA.
c. If qualified for retention on active duty and if cadets have 6 months or more remaining on their active duty obligation, they will revert to enlisted status for completion of their obligation. If less than 6 months remain on their active duty obligation, they will be transferred to the Reserve to complete their obligation.
d. If not qualified for retention on active duty, they will be discharged from the Army per Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation).
23. Army Regulation 612-205 also provides for the disposition of enlisted personnel separated from Service academies for other than physical disqualifications. Table 3, Rule 9 (the separation authority in which the applicant was discharged under) states if separation action is started because of unsuitability for military service as contemplated by Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) then he or she will be discharged. However, if the separation authority determines that the cadet is being separated from the academy because of demonstrated unsuitability, unfitness, or physical disqualification from military service, the cadet will be discharged from the Army.
24. Army Regulation 210-26 provides policy and procedures for the general governance and operation of the USMA.
a. Cadets of USMA must meet the medical accession standards of Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 2, for retention at USMA and for appointment as officers upon graduation. The Superintendent may, however, grant medical waivers for continuation at USMA, provided the cadet meets the retention standards of Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3.
b. Paragraph 6-30 (Medically disqualified cadets) states that whenever the Surgeon, USMA, determines a USMA cadet does not meet the fitness requirements to perform all duties as a member of the Corps of Cadets during the current academic term or summer training period, or will not meet the medical fitness standards for appointment on active duty at the expected time of commissioning, the Superintendent will review the case and, at his discretion, take one of the following actions:
(1) Afford the cadet an opportunity to resign.
(2) Recommend that, in the case of the medical disqualification under cadet retention standards as provided in Army Regulation 40-501, the cadet be separated (see Army Regulation 612-205).
(3) For cadets of the first class (4th year), recommend they be retained and graduated, either as provided in paragraph 5-3b of this regulation, or, if otherwise qualified, by being granted a waiver and commissioned.
(4) Recommend that the cadet, if physically disqualified for any military service, be discharged (paragraph 5-3b of this regulation and Army Regulation 612-205).
c. Paragraph 7-9 (Breach of service agreement and reimbursement of educational costs) states cadets who resign from the Military Academy, or who are separated from the Academy under the procedures contained in table 7-1, will be deemed to have breached their service agreement. Table 7-1 exclusively lists: conduct deficiency, extended unauthorized absence, marriage or support obligation, misconduct, conscientious objection or refusal to perform duties that conflict with religious practices, failure to maintain physical fitness standards, or failure to meet army weight and body composition standards or make satisfactory progress in a weight control program.
d. Cadets separated from the Military Academy under procedures other than those contained in table 7-1 may be deemed by the Superintendent to have breached their service agreement if the cadet's failure to meet the standards for continued attendance at USMA or for commissioning resulted from a willful act or omission.
25. DODD 1332.23 states in subparagraph 6.1.4. ordinarily, disenrolled cadets shall be ordered to Reserve or active duty status if qualified.
a. Subparagraph 6.1.4.1. - This shall not preclude the Military Department from considering humanitarian reasons, Military Service needs, or other mitigating circumstances for waiving active enlisted service and reimbursement charges for disenrolled cadets. Such considerations shall be documented carefully by the Military Department concerned, which shall also make final decisions on active enlisted status.
b. Subparagraph 6.1.4.2. - Persons medically disqualified from further Military Service shall be separated and shall not be obligated further for Military Service or for reimbursing education costs (absent evidence of fraud, concealment, gross negligence, intentional misconduct, or misrepresentation).
26. DODD 6130.3 Establishes medical standards for appointment, enlistment, or induction into the Military Services, which, if not met, are grounds for rejection for military service. Unless otherwise stipulated, the conditions listed in this enclosure are those that do NOT meet the standard by virtue of current diagnosis, or for which the candidate has a verified past medical history.
a. History of depressive disorders, including but not limited to major depression (296), dysthymic disorder (300.4), and cyclothymic disorder requiring outpatient care for longer than 12 months by a physician or other mental health professional (to include V65.40), or any inpatient treatment in a hospital or residential facility.
b. Depressive disorder not otherwise specified (311), or unspecified mood disorder (296.90), UNLESS: Outpatient care was not required for longer than
24 months (cumulative) by a physician or other mental health professional (to include V65.40). The applicant has been stable without treatment for the past 36 continuous months. The applicant did not require any inpatient treatment in a hospital or residential facility.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant was appointed as a cadet on 29 June 2009 and entered USMA the same day with the full intention to complete the program and therefore graduate and receive his commission in the U.S. Army as noted in his Oath of Allegiance.
2. However, during the course of his 4th year as a cadet he began displaying symptoms of depression coupled with the inability to sleep. He was also enrolled in ASAP for alcohol dependence. At the time he submitted his unqualified resignation a member of his cadet chain of command endorsed his request and submitted that his psychological issues became apparent to his "TAC" chain of
command shortly after he began his first class year. However, his psychological issues were overlooked and he was allowed to remain in the Academy through his 4th year.
3. An SF 600 shows that on 21 November 2012 a psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant with major depressive disorder; rule out post-traumatic stress disorder; and alcohol abuse. The exact date of these diagnoses is not listed.
4. During his mental evaluation, the psychiatrist also noted that the applicant had an Axis I condition that did not meet the commissioning standards of chapter 2, Army Regulation 40-501 and it was not recommended to waive that standard; however, despite his history of suicidal behavior and his ongoing depression, "the cadet has been able to maintain adequate performance and continues to meet the retention standards of chapter 3 of Army Regulation 40-501."
5. The advisory opinion stated the applicant is not entitled to the administrative relief he requests because he understood that if he was not ordered to active duty the reimbursement provisions of his service agreement would apply. However, it is also important to note that in an email, dated 13 May 2014, an official from the G-1, ASA, Manpower and Reserve Affairs stated the original decision to recoup educational expenses was solely based on his unqualified resignation and that the existence of a medical condition was not known at that time.
6. It is obvious that his medical condition prevented him from meeting the commissioning standards set forth in chapter 2; however, it is important to note that he was in a training environment at the time the diagnosis was given. The psychiatrist's assessment that he met the retention standards of chapter 3 only applied to the completion of his course of instruction while attending USMA. Because in the same diagnosis for disposition, it was recommended that he not be retained for further military service.
7. DODD 1332.23 states in subparagraph 6.1.4.2. that persons medically disqualified from further Military Service shall be separated and shall not be obligated further for Military Service or for reimbursing education costs. His medical condition was one which was listed in chapter 2 of 40-501 thus making it a medically disqualifying condition for commissioning.
8. As a matter of justice it would be in the best interest of the applicant and the U.S. Army to forgive educational assistance debt in the amount of $171,092.34 (plus interest) and to rescind any recoupment actions currently pending.
BOARD VOTE:
___X____ ____X___ ____X__ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
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 showing that, on 28 January 2013, the ASA, Manpower and Reserve Affairs, approved the applicant's request to waive the USMA educational assistance debt (plus interest). In addition, any recoupment actions currently pending should be halted, and any monies previously collected as a result of this debt should be reimbursed to him as a result of this records correction.
___________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) AR20140008975
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140008975
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140009147
His record contains a document entitled "Action," signed by the USMA Superintendent and dated 3 December 2011, which shows the following actions were taken with respect to the findings of the Investigation Officer (IO) in the applicant's misconduct investigation: a. c. A call to active duty was determined to be inappropriate; therefore, it was recommended that HQDA direct the conduct of an Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers) investigation to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150007373
The applicant provides: * DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document Armed Forces of the United States) * USMEPCOM (United States Military Entrance Processing Command) Orders 5034033, issued by Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS), St. Louis, MO, on 3 February 2015 * an email from Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), Indianapolis, IN, dated 18 March 2015, subject: Navy Service in Lieu of Debt * DFAS Debt and Claims Account Statement, dated 29 December 2014 * DD Form 214...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110014021
k. Counsel states that the former Regulations, USMA 10.24 provided that a cadet without a medical profile who was determined to have repeatedly failed the CPFT could be separated from the USMA. The counselor provided him tips to improve his ability to pass the CPFT (The Record of Proceedings did not indicate if he took the 90-day test noted in the 12 May 1994 counseling); f. learned in a 1 February 1995 counseling that he was being considered as a possible physical education failure for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007583
Army Regulation 210-26 (U.S. Military Academy) contemplates the Superintendent appointing an investigating officer to determine the validity of a debt that a person incurred while they were a cadet at USMA, even if that investigation is conducted after the individual has been separated from the USMA. Paragraph 7-9 (Breach of Service Agreement and Reimbursement of Educational Costs) of Army Regulation 210-26 states: a. a cadet who voluntarily, or because of misconduct, fails to complete the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003432
Counsel provides the following: USMA Oath of Allegiance; Academic Record; Cadet Performance Reports; Leadership Performance Reports; Demerit Review; USMA Forms 2-3 (Record of Formal Proceedings Under Article 10, Cadet Disciplinary Code); Sworn Statement; Memorandum, Subject: Disciplinary Award No. On 2 March 2007, the applicant's counselor recommended dismissal of the preferred charges on the applicant because the test result "was barely positive." Army Regulation 210-26 also states, in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130010760
He further states the recoupment of his educational assistance costs, as well as his separation, is unjustified for the following reasons: * the failed tape measurement standard was conducted on 21 September 2012 by a student and subject to error and a breach of his privacy * he passed a subsequent tape measurement standard on 31 October 2012 * his name was misspelled, his height was .5 inches shorter, and the calculations were wrong in the October 2012 tape measurement * he believes if one...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011234C070208
The applicant’s cadet records are not available to the Board. Gears failed to complete the period of active duty specified in his Agreement with the Navy. Had the applicant maintained the Army's weight standard, it could be argued he would have passed the 2-mile run event.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014346
Counsel states the applicant was a cadet at the USMA from 1997 until his final disenrollment in 2003. Counsel points out that the Army advised the applicant that he would be recommended for separation if he did not pass the 90-day APFT retest. A cadet who fails to meet the [APFT] standards may be separated from the [USMA] .
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070019029
The BTO indicated that if the applicant failed any portions of his Army minimums during his retest, he would recommend separation proceedings be initiated against him under the provisions of paragraph 10.24 Regulation, USMA and he could be required to reimburse the U.S. Government for the cost of his education. He was separated for failing 3 APFTs. The advisory opinion stated the applicant was well aware that failure to meet fitness standards for both the Army and USMA could lead to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013808
Counsel further states that as a result of the applicant's failure to pass the APFT, the Superintendent of the USMA recommended that he be separated from the academy, be discharged from the United States Army, and repay the costs of his education. He has given everything he had to the USMA. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. graduating him from the December 2004 class and awarding him the Bachelor of...