Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09041-06
Original file (09041-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                                    2 NAVY ANNEX
                                              WASHINGTON DC 20370-5 100


MEH
 Doc No. 9041-06
 23 Oct 07

From:    Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
 To:      Secretary of the Navy
Subj:    REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD ICO
Ref:     (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552
End:     (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments
 (2)      Bureau of Medicine and Surgery (BUNED) ltr 6110 M3F1/NROTC/A215918 of 13 January 2003
(3)      CNET 1533/32, Disenrol l ment Report ICO Midshipman
(4)      CNP ltr 1920 Ser 834E/371 of 18 November 2003
(5)      NETC memo 1533 OD41 of 21 Feb 07
(6)      OJAG memo 1400 Ser 13/4BC11905.07 of 20 Sep 07
(7)      Subject’s naval record and BCNR file
1.       Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a) Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected to show that he is not indebted to the government for the cost of his NROTC education.
2.       The Board, consisting of Mr. Dawson, Mr. Tew, and Ms~ Roy, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 23 October 2007 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
3.       The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice, finds as follows:
a.       Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy.



Doc No. 9041-06

b.       On 20 August 2000 Petitioner was discharged from active enlisted Naval service to enroll in the NROTC program at Purdue University.
c.       On 21 August 2000 he signed CNET 1533/38, NROTC Scholarship Service Agreement, acknowledging and agreeing to the conditions of the scholarship. This agreement was reviewed at the beginning of his sophomore year, and again, he acknowledged the conditions, to include possible recoupment if the educational requirements were not completed as identified.
d.       Petitioner was placed on probation in November 2002 for failing to meet physical readiness standards, specifically, he failed the body composition and run portion of the Fall 2002 Physical Readiness Test (PRT). The probation period extended until the Fall 2003 PRT.
e.       Petitioner was placed on Medical Leave of Absence (MLOA) on 21 November 2002, due to asthma. While on NLOA all scholarship benefits were suspended.
f.       Bureau of Medicine and Surgery (BUMED) memo of 13 January 2003 found Petitioner not physically qualified for continuation in the NROTC program due to “asthma which existed prior to entry into program and persists to present.” BUMED also determined that Petitioner was not physically qualified for active enlisted service. Enclosure (2)
g.       On 13 January 2003, the same date of the BUNED memo, Petitioner entered the following student statement in CNET 1533/32, Disenroliment Report: “(I am) dropping NROTC due to physical inabilities to perform my duties to the standards of the U.S. Navy because my medical condition, i.e. asthma (exercise induced and allergy triggered). I do not feel I can adequately perform all that I should as a member in the US Navy because of my condition and therefore had to come to this conclusion.. . If given the option, I would choose ‘repay tuition’ to resolve my indebtedness to the US Government for participation in the NROTC Program.” Enclosure (3).
h.       The Professor of Naval Science remarked on 27 Feb 2003 that: “Since knowingly entered into the NROTC program with asthma and accepted benefits, I recommend that he fulfill his obligation via recoupment of benefits.” The disenrol l ment was processed as a “Drop Own Request.” Enclosure (3)

2



 Doc No. 9041-06

disclose that he had asthma before entering the program. Also, Petitioner did not receive due process before a Performance Review Board or investigating officer prior to disenrollment as required by regulations. Accordingly, OJAG concludes that Petitioner’s request should be granted.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants favorable action. The Board agrees with the comments provided by OJAG in enclosure (6) that the disenro l lment should have been characterized as a “mandatory disenrollment due to physical disqualification” vice “Drop Own Request,” Petitioner did not receive due process before a Performance Review Board or investigating officer prior to disenro l lment, and there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the Petitioner had failed in his duty to disclose that he had asthma before entering the NROTC program. Accordingly, the Board concludes that the record should be corrected to show that Petitioner is not indebted to the government for the cost of his NROTC education.
RECONNENDAT ION:
That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected, where appropriate, to show that:
a.       He was disenrolled from the NROTC Unit at Purdue University based on physical reasons, vice Drop Own Request, and he is not indebted to the government for the educational expenses incurred. Any monies that may have already been recouped should be returned to Petitioner.
4.       Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(c)) it is certified that quorum was present at the Board’s review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board’s proceedings in the above entitled matter.

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN        WILLIAM J. HESS I II
Recorder         Acting Recorder




4



Doc No. 9041-06



5.       The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review and action.





         W. DEAN PFIEFFER
                                                                Executive Director



Reviewed and approved:


ROBTERT T. CALI
Assistant General Counsel
 Ma np ower and Reserves Af fairs )

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04839-01

    Original file (04839-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your allegations of error and A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. opinion furnished by CNET memorandum attached. which was later reversed to a "waiver recommended th Unit, San and fused to accept a restricted line designator, thus or disenrollment from the NROTC Program.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08884-02

    Original file (08884-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 September 2003. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. absence due to aptitude, performance review board. resignation from and elected not to appear before a On 31 January 2001 the commanding You then submitted your On 6 December 2000 you WI11 On 6 February 2001 the Bureau...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 04427-06

    Original file (04427-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    In order to enroll in MGIB, service members are required to contribute a total of $1,200 into the MGIB program (usually $100.00 per month for the first 12 months)d. On 13 February 1997, Petitioner signed the DD Form 2366 Montgomery GI Bill Statement of Disenrollment (enclosure (3)), however, he did not sign the Statement of Understanding indicating that he understood he was eligible for the MGIB Program enrollment. Petitioner requests that his naval record be corrected to show that he...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03176-08

    Original file (03176-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 March 2009. The Board finds that, in light of the educational benefit you received, the regulations implementing the NROTC program and the terms of the scholarship agreement, it is mot an error or an injustice for the Secretary of the Navy to require reimbursement of the costs expended by the United States for your education. Consequently, when applying for a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09247-08

    Original file (09247-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval ‘Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 March 2009. The Board finds that, in light of the educational benefit you received, the regulations implementing the NROTC program and the terms of the scholarship agreement, it is not an error or an injustice for the Secretary of the Navy to require reimbursement Docket No. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07773-10

    Original file (07773-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On or about 13 March 2006, you appeared before a Performance Review Board {PRB} convened to inquire into your aptitude and performance. In the Board's view, your request to disenroll was a voluntary decision made of your own free will. Docket No._7773-10 were aware that you could continue in the NROTC program as well.?

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01890-10

    Original file (01890-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 MEH Docket No. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05497-01

    Original file (05497-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your allegations of error and A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09277-02

    Original file (09277-02.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected to terminate recoupment of NROTC tuition debt. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Beckett, Brezna, and Pfeiffer, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 4 February 2003 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04663-01

    Original file (04663-01.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Sincerely, W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director Enclosures DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 TRG Docket No: 4663-01 2 April 2003 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD 0 ~mIuu-.m”~ Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. In response to congressional interest in Petitioner’s case, Headquarters Marine Corps stated, in part, as follows: ... On September 22, 1999, (Petitioner)...