IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  21 May 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140015462 


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, removal of the documentation related to her disenrollment and breach of contract while in the Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) Scholarship Program, as well as remission of her ROTC debt in the amount of $8,372.50 

2.  The applicant states, in effect:

	a.  Her original debt was $16,745 and this amount was reduced to $8,372.50 by the acting Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) (ASA (M&RA)).  In that decision, the ASA (M&RA) acknowledged the ROTC cadre at Florida State University (FSU) acted improperly.

	b.  The FSU ROTC cadre failed to follow U.S. Army Cadet Command (USACC) regulations regarding the transfer of her national scholarship from FSU to Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech or VT).  Additionally, they failed to provide her due process during disenrollment proceedings.

3.  The applicant provides a:

* sequence of events
* self-authored statement
* rebuttal to disenrollment board findings
* letter of support
* WCTV TV (CBS-affiliated television station for South Georgia and Florida's Big Bend) news story about the applicant, dated 5 February 2015
* unofficial student transcript
* email, dated 3 May 2012, from the Scholarship and Enrollment Officer, Virginia Tech, addressed to Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) GDA, Professor of Military Science (PMS), FSU
* letter, undated, from applicant's mother to Colonel (COL) BEB, Brigade Commander, 6th Brigade, USACC
* memorandum, dated 3 July 2013, from Headquarters, USACC, Fort Knox, KY, subject:  Disenrollment from the U.S. Army ROTC Program
* letter, undated, addressed to the applicant from the Commanding General (CG), USACC, Fort Knox
* letter, dated 16 January 2014, addressed to the applicant from Mr. KAG, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, G-1, USACC, Fort Knox
* letter, undated, from the applicant's mother addressed to her Member of Congress
* letter, dated 9 July 2014, from the applicant's Member of Congress addressed to the applicant
* letter, dated 29 November 2012, from the applicant to LTC GDA, PMS, FSU
* letter, dated 2 July 2014, from Mr. TA, Department of the Army Office of the Chief of Legislative Liaison, addressed to the applicant's Member of Congress

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (ROTC) on 22 March 2011.  She was attending Tallahassee Community College (TCC) at the time of her enlistment.  Her DA Form 597-3 (Army Senior ROTC Scholarship Cadet Contract) shows the date her education commenced was 4 January 2011 with a completion date of 5 May 2014.  Her academic major was criminology and the contract shows she was to enroll at FSU, Tallahassee, FL.

2.  Within her DA Form 597-3 are the following:

	a.  Paragraph 1 (Department of the Army Agreements) states she would be paid scholarship benefits for a period of 3 1/2 academic years.  

	b.  Paragraph 2 (General Cadet Agreement), subparagraph e (ROTC Courses Grade Point Average (GPA) Agreement), states the applicant agreed to maintain at least a 2.0 on a 4.0 or equivalent scale, cumulative and semester or quarter academic GPA in all ROTC courses (emphasis added).
	c.  Paragraph 5 (Terms of Disenrollment) states she understood and agreed that, once she became obligated, in the event she was disenrolled from the ROTC program for breach of contractual terms, the Secretary of the Army or his/her designee could order her to active duty as an enlisted Soldier for a specified period of time; or in lieu of being ordered to active duty, she could be required to repay the dollar amount, plus interest, equal to the entire amount of the financial assistance paid by the United States to the cadet (emphasis added). 

3.  On 17 January 2012, LTC GDA, PMS, FSU, submitted a Cadet Command Form 131-E (Cadet Action Request) recommending to the Commander, 
6th Brigade, that the applicant be placed on academic probation.  His basis for this action was her failure of a mathematics class.  In the justification, LTC GDA notes the applicant's cumulative GPA was 2.76 and her fall term GPA was 2.41.

4.  On 27 September 2012, in a memorandum, LTC GDA notified her of the initiation of disenrollment from the ROTC program for failing to enroll in Military Science III Class for the Fall 2012 semester  She was informed she could request a hearing.  She was further informed that, as a scholarship cadet, she could be called to active duty in the enlisted grade of private/E-1 or be required to repay scholarship benefits in the amount of $16,745 in lieu of call to active duty.

5.  On 31 October 2012, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the initiation of the disenrollment action and requested a hearing.  She elected to decline a call to active duty within 60 days after completion of her projected graduation date or upon withdrawal/dismissal from school, whichever occurred first, and declined expeditious call to active duty.

6.  On 13 November 2012, a formal board of officers, consisting of one officer and a recorder, was appointed to determine the applicant's suitability for retention in the Army ROTC program as well as the amount and validity of scholarship debt.

7.  On 21 November 2012, the applicant was informed by memorandum that a formal board of officers would convene on 4 December 2012 to review her case.  On 29 November 2012, the applicant requested additional time to prepare for the board of officers.  On 26 December 2012, the applicant requested another extension.  On 27 December 2012, in an email, the president of the board advised the applicant an additional extension would not be approved.  She was informed of her right to submit a rebuttal and to seek counsel to prepare her rebuttal.


8.  On 27 December 2012, the formal board convened.  The board recommended the applicant:

* not be retained as either an ROTC scholarship or non-scholarship cadet
* be disenrolled
* not be ordered to active duty in an enlisted status for 2 years
* be ordered to repay advanced educational scholarship benefits in the amount of $16,745

9.  On 21 January 2013, the applicant was notified by letter of the results of the board and advised she could submit a rebuttal.

10.  The applicant submitted an undated written rebuttal:

	a.  Her rebuttal essentially stated:

* while enrolled as a student athlete at TCC, she entered the FSU ROTC program as Military Science I (first year) cadet in August 2010
* her accomplishments during her freshman year included her selection to serve as a guard at the Tallahassee Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and, during Ranger Challenge, her team won the FSU competition
* in September 2010, the FSU cadre talked with her about the ROTC scholarship; she was told, if awarded the scholarship, it would be transferrable to another school
* in December 2010, she was informed she would receive a 3 1/2 year ROTC scholarship; she signed the ROTC scholarship contract in March 2011
* she accepted the ROTC scholarship fully intending to be commissioned as a second lieutenant; military service is a tradition in her family, in fact her father was still on active duty at that point
* in July 2011, the applicant and her mother made an unofficial visit to the VT campus; in October 2011 she informed the FSU cadre she would be transferring to VT for her junior and senior years
* on 15 November 2011, she was sworn in by LTC GDA; she also signed papers, committing herself to play softball at VT

	b.  She continued:

* In December 2011, she corresponded with ROTC cadre about what was needed to transfer to VT; she told the FSU ROTC cadre she believed she would fail her class in mathematics and was told USACC would not permit a transfer when a student had failed a class
* In January 2012, Mr. JL (one of the FSU ROTC cadre) asked her to sign papers stating she was being placed on academic probation; her grades were not discussed, nor did they talk about developing an action plan to correct what had occurred
* she retook the mathematics class and passed; at no point did any of the FSU ROTC cadre follow-up with her regarding her grades
* her ROTC scholarship contract (DA Form 597-3) stated she was required to maintain a cumulative GPA of 2.0; her cumulative GPA at the time she was placed on academic probation was 2.7
* Again, in April 2012, LTC GDA told her that her scholarship would not transfer to VT; she was also told she should attend VT without a scholarship and remain at FSU and "walk on to the FSU softball team"
* at that point she was a committed player with VT and she believed that "walking on to a team" would result in less playing-time with that team
* she left the meeting with LTC GDA and turned in her gear at the supply room
* she enrolled into VT in August 2012

	c.  She further wrote, in effect:

* the FSU ROTC cadre did not correspond with anyone regarding the transfer of her scholarship until 3 May 2012
* a letter from the VT Army ROTC stated the PMS there would not allow her to be a part of the VT Corps of Cadets, but would let her be in the Radford University ROTC program; had she followed this alternative, she would not be able to receive scholarship funds
* she signed no counseling statements when she met with LTC GDA, and neither signed any counseling statements nor spoke to anyone regarding the option to participate in the Radford ROTC program
* the circumstances were forcing her to choose between participating in collegiate softball or being in the Army ROTC program
* her family tradition of military service to her country was important; but equally important was her commitment to softball
* she had played for 15 years with the goal of playing for a Division 1 college team
* while in high school, her team went to State playoffs 3 out of 4 years
* as a high school senior, she received awards for First Team - All County, First Team - All State, Most Valuable Player for Carroll County, GA, and the Silver Slugger Award
* during her freshman year at TCC, her team placed third in the nation
* additionally, she earned numerous softball awards while at TCC
* regarding the disenrollment process, she feels she was denied due process
* setting the date of the board during December would place a hardship on any student
* throughout the process, FSU demonstrated a lack of concern about the distance and time (she was in Virginia at the time of the board)
* the FSU cadre denied her assistance with the proceedings
* she felt she met her obligations, as outlined in her contract
* she requested her debt be waived 

11.  In a memorandum, dated 3 July 2013, she was notified by Major General (MG) JAS, CG, USACC and Fort Knox, that she was disenrolled and would be discharged from the ROTC program.  MG JAS further stated, in part, her disenrollment was due to breach of her ROTC contract in that she failed to enroll in Military Science classes for the fall semester in 2012.  When the ROTC scholarship contract was breached, any obligation to the Army was to be satisfied by repaying the cost of advanced education assistance provided by the Army.  Her debt was $16,745.  She was given 14 days from the date of the letter to submit her election.  She was advised that failure to respond would result in the initiation of involuntary collection action.  

12.  The applicant appealed the disenrollment decision and her requirement to repay her scholarship debt.  In addition to the points she raised in her rebuttal to the board of officers, she wrote:

* she spoke to a number of Army officers, some of whom had served as Senior Army ROTC instructors; none could find a regulatory reason for FSU's denial of her transfer
* on the contrary, those who had served as ROTC instructors acknowledged the transfer of scholarships was a common occurrence
* several officers told her it appeared to them FSU had intentionally deceived her so as to meet their commissioning mission
* had the FSU cadre processed her request for transfer in accordance with USACC regulations, no breach of contract would have occurred
* she also maintained she was not given sufficient time to prepare her case; had she been given the time needed, she could have provided the evidence necessary to show she was not culpable for the breach of contract and thus showed why she should not be liable for repayment

13.  In a memorandum, dated 10 January 2014, issued by the Office of the ASA (M&RA), subject:  Debt Recoupment, ROTC Former Cadet [applicant], the ASA (M&RA) responded to her appeal, stating the circumstances had been reviewed and a reduction in the debt was found to be warranted.  The following findings formed the basis for the reduction in debt:

	a.  The applicant was [incorrectly] given assurances by the FSU ROTC cadre she would be able to maintain her ROTC scholarship in the event she transferred.

	b.  The applicant was improperly placed on academic probation.

14.  The applicant provides:

	a.  A sequence of events that lays out key events.

	b.  A letter of support from her assistant softball coach at TCC in which she states:

* she coached the applicant from August 2010 to May 2012
* she attended the meeting with the applicant and the FSU ROTC representative; at that point the applicant was being actively recruited by a number of Division 1 colleges to play softball
* the possibility of attending FSU was discussed, but FSU had not expressed an interest in having the applicant play on their softball team
* there was never an indication that if the applicant was given an ROTC scholarship she would not be able to transfer with that scholarship

	c.  A letter of support from the applicant's mother, addressed to the brigade commander responsible for the FSU ROTC program states, in effect:

* as a parent and a leader of young adults, she recognized young adults do not always think clearly as to the consequences of their decisions
* in reviewing her daughter's disenrollment packet, there is no indication her daughter was ever counseled by any member of the FSU ROTC cadre as to her grades, or her failure to complete the requirements of the ROTC contract
* her daughter maintained the GPA required by her ROTC contract; when she was told by the FSU ROTC cadre the failure of her mathematic class meant she could no longer transfer both she and her daughter were confused
* their confusion resulted from the fact the ROTC contract did not prohibit the applicant from transferring schools when her transcript contained a failing grade
* also confusing were comments by the VT ROTC Scholarship Enrollment Officer which stated the applicant would not receive a scholarship without first attending one semester there; this was contrary to the impression given during their earlier visit at VT
* she is convinced her daughter was upfront with FSU about the possibility she would choose another school
* her daughter was overwhelmed with the requirements of her ROTC contract and, as such, any failure to complete the requirements was not due to a lack of commitment; rather it was the lack of proper guidance from the FSU ROTC cadre

	d.  A letter written by the applicant's mother to her Member of Congress, wherein she provides a summary of what had occurred and stated she believed the FSU ROTC cadre intentionally misled her daughter in order to fulfill their commissioning (recruitment) requirements.  In her view, her daughter should not be held liable for the repayment of her scholarship as the FSU ROTC cadre was 100 percent culpable.

15.  Army Regulation 145-1 (Senior ROTC Program: Organization, Administration and Training) prescribes policies and general procedures for administering the Army’s Senior ROTC Program.  Paragraph 3-43, in part, states that scholarship cadets will be disenrolled for a breach of contract.  Breach is defined as any act, performance, or nonperformance on the part of a student that breaches the terms of the contract regardless of whether the act, performance, or nonperformance was done with specific intent to breach the contract or whether the student knew that the act, performance, or nonperformance breaches the contract.  

16.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 2005(f) essentially states the Secretary concerned, as a condition of providing financial assistance under section 2107a (financial assistance program for specially selected members:  Army Reserve and Army National Guard; i.e., ROTC), and in cases where the recipient of financial assistance fails to fulfill contractual requirements, the Secretary concerned shall have the option to order that person to reimburse the United States without first ordering that person to active duty.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant contracted to participate in an ROTC program.  When she signed the ROTC Scholarship contract, she agreed that in the event she disenrolled from the ROTC program, she could either be ordered to repay her scholarship debt or be required to enter active duty as an enlisted Soldier.  The evidence of record also shows she failed to satisfy the contractual requirements of this program when she did not enroll in Military Science classes at FSU for the fall semester of 2012.  She therefore was found to be in breach of her ROTC contract, was accordingly disenrolled from the program, and notified she would be required to repay a debt of $16,745.  

2.  During the appellate process, the applicant contended the FSU ROTC cadre acted inappropriately and misled her.  In response to her appeal, on 10 January 2014, the ASA (M&RA) reduced the amount owed to $8,372.50, finding the FSU ROTC cadre did, in fact, act improperly.

3.  As to removing the documentation related to her disenrollment and breach of contract, there is insufficient evidence submitted or within the available record which shows a material error or injustice occurred such that removal of all related documents would be required.  For historical purposes, the Army has an interest in maintaining the accuracy of its records.  The data and information contained in those records should reflect the conditions and circumstances that existed at the time the records were created.  In the absence of a showing of material error or injustice, there is a reluctance to recommend that those records be changed.  

4.  In submitting her application to the Board, she offers no new evidence that shows an injustice or administrative error beyond what has already been addressed.  The fact remains that the applicant was, in the event of disenrollment, contractually required to either repay her scholarship funds or enter active duty as an enlisted Soldier.  She has elected not to enter active duty, a decision affirmed by the ASA (M&RA), and thus must repay the debt.

5.  Based upon the foregoing, there is insufficient evidence to support granting the requested relief.

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)                                         AR20140015462



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140015462



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1