PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           3 March 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12216
				   AR1998006357

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Edward Williamson		Member	
	Mr. Gary C. Miller		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests that her enlistment contract be fulfilled, that she be paid her re-enlistment bonus, that she be reimbursed for the costs of her Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) school expenses and that her credit be cleared.

3.  The applicant states she re-enlisted for LPN school at the advice of her first sergeant.  She worked hard and did well.  She went into the Control Group because of a family emergency.  Her enlistment did not end with her going to the Control Group, it ended when her contract stated it should end – March 1996.  

4.  The applicant’s military records show that after initially serving 3 years in the Regular Army from 1974 – 1977, she enlisted in the U. S. Army Reserve on       26 June 1989.  

5.  On 19 September 1989, the applicant signed a Statement of Understanding, Additional Service Obligation:  Civilian Contract Training Program.  She stated that she understood that if she was placed in an active duty for training (ADT) status in order to attend a Civilian Contract Training Program for military occupational specialty (MOS) qualification, that she would incur an additional obligation of four months for every one month of schooling received.

6.  The applicant also signed a Civilian Medical Contract Training Program Agreement, wherein she agreed, in consideration of an ADT tour to attend a school under the 91C or 92B Contract Training Program, to reenlist or remain in a TPU of the U. S. Army Reserve for a period of 4 months for each month of civilian training received.  She understood that if she failed to fulfill her obligations under that contract, the U. S. Army may institute proceedings against her to recover the cost of the schooling she had received.

7.  She reenlisted on 30 March 1990 for 6 years for assignment to a Troop Program Unit.  On DA Form 3540/1, Certificate and Acknowledgement of Service Requirements for Individuals Enlisting, Reenlisting, or Transferring into Troop Program Units of the U. S. Army Reserve, the applicant acknowledged that she was reenlisting for continued service in a troop program unit and satisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve for the entire period of service stipulated on the enlistment document.  DA Form 5261-2-R, Selected Reserve Incentive Program – Reenlistment/Extension Bonus Addendum is also completed.  On this form, the applicant acknowledged that with her 6-year reenlistment she was eligible for a reenlistment bonus of $2,500.  The initial payment would be $500, the remainder to be paid in six increments, the incremental payments to be paid on satisfactory completion of each year of the 6-year term of service.

8.  The applicant was ordered to ADT for approximately 345 days with a reporting date of 12 March 1990 for 91C (Licensed Practical Nurse) Civilian Contract Training.
9.  On 30 March 1992, the applicant was reassigned from her TPU assignment in the Selected Reserve and transferred to the U. S. Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement) for cogent personal reasons (hardship and family emergency).

10.  The applicant was discharged from the U. S. Army Reserve effective 2 April 1996.

11.  Army Regulation 140-1 sets policy on the U. S. Army Reserve mission, its organization and training.  In pertinent part, it states that TPUs will conduct 48 unit training assemblies each fiscal year.  

12.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Office of the Chief, Army Reserve.  The opinion recommended that the applicant’s debt to the government be canceled but that her request for reimbursement of her expenses or further payment of the reenlistment bonus be denied.  The opinion noted that the applicant voluntarily transferred to the Control Group due to family hardship before completing her obligation.

13.  The applicant rebutted this opinion.  She noted that she completed her training, graduating on 7 March 1991, and went on to Desert Storm.  She did not enter the Control Group until well after the war ended and she returned home.  She was still eligible to be called upon again, even if she was in the Control Group.  She fulfilled her obligation to the Army.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Prior to reenlisting on 30 March 1990 for Civilian Contract Training in MOS 91C, the applicant signed two statements.  In one statement she acknowledged that she understood that if she was placed in an ADT status in order to attend a Civilian Contract Training Program for MOS qualification, she would incur an additional obligation of four months for every one month of schooling received.  In the other statement she acknowledged that she was reenlisting for continued service in a troop program unit and satisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve for the entire period of service stipulated on the enlistment document.  

2.  The applicant was fully aware that if her training was 12 months long, she was obligated to remain in her TPU assignment for an additional 48 months after she became MOS qualified.  If she failed to fulfill her obligations under that contract, the U. S. Army could institute proceedings against her to recover the cost of the schooling she had received.  Upon her transfer to the Control Group in March 1992, she had completed only 12 months of her acknowledged 48 month obligation.

3.  The applicant also acknowledged that with her 6-year reenlistment she was eligible for a reenlistment bonus of $2,500 and that after the initial payment of $500, the remainder would be paid in six increments, the incremental payments to be paid on satisfactory completion of each year of the 6-year term of service.  The applicant did not complete her 6-year term of service in a TPU.

4.  The reasons for the applicant’s transfer to the Control Group were unfortunate, but it in effect broke her enlistment contract.  Being assigned to the Control Group and being subject to a call to active duty is not the equivalent of being assigned to a TPU where one’s qualifications are utilized during the required 48 unit training assemblies each fiscal year.

5.  Because the applicant broke her enlistment contract, there is no basis to reimburse her for any expenses she may have incurred in attending the LPN Civilian Contract Training for which the Government paid the majority of expenses.

6.  There is no evidence of the amount of or reason for the indebtedness noted in the advisory opinion, although it presumably is for the cost of the training.

7.  There is also no evidence of record to show that the applicant was called to active duty for Desert Storm; however, this would not have negated the penalties she incurred by not completing her contractual obligation.

8.  The applicant’s credit rating is not a military record and so cannot be addressed by the Board.

9.  In view of the foregoing and the advisory opinion’s recommendation, it would be in the interest of justice to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by canceling any outstanding indebtedness to the Government related to the applicant’s Civilian Contract Training.  If any of this indebtedness has been collected from the applicant, the applicant will be reimbursed for such collection.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied 

BOARD VOTE:  

__RVO__  __EW___  __GCM__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-12216/AR1998006357	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990303	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	112.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.