MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            29 June 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000038967

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

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

	The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. John N. Slone		Member	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that the reason for his discharge be changed to medical and that the debt he incurred, based on money received as a result of an Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) scholarship, be remitted.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he did not breach his contract and does not owe the government money.  He indicates that he was given an honorable discharge which was not based on illegal behavior.  His ROTC contract states that he had to pay back his scholarship money only if given a discharge for dishonorable circumstances or if he voluntarily requested resignation.  He claims that it was his commander’s decision to give him an honorable discharge rather that giving him a medical discharge.  The applicant provided the enclosed copies of his medical record and a copy of his contract in support of his case.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

On 3 May 1998, he was appointed a 2nd lieutenant in the USAR.  The source of his commission was the ROTC and on 19 May 1998, he was ordered to active duty to attend the Field Artillery (FA) Officer Basic Course (OBC) at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. 

On 20 October 1998, the applicant was referred to the Community Mental Health Activity (CMHA) for a psychiatric evaluation, by his unit commander.  The unit commander cited the applicant’s numerous incidents of being late for OBC training courses, the majority of which were physical training classes.  He also indicated that the applicant had been counseled by him, the battery commander, and the battalion commander in regard to his misconduct.  The applicant informed his commander that he believed he was suffering from a seasonally acquired depression.  

On 13 November 1998, the Chief of the CMHA, a clinical psychologist, prepared a mental health evaluation on the applicant.  This evaluation indicated that the applicant was fully alert, oriented, and suffered from only a mild depression.  He also indicated that the applicant’s thinking process was clear and his thought content was considered normal.  The evaluator also found that the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in discharge proceedings.  He further found that the applicant was mentally responsible and met the retention standards of the regulation.  

The mental evaluation also indicated that the applicant’s condition was often responsive to various drugs and forms of psychotherapy (light therapy).  Further, the evaluator recommended that the applicant be treated for the condition and if he failed to respond it would likely indicate that other factors were also influencing his current substandard performance, such as lack of motivation or effort.  The evaluator stated that retention should be based on the applicant’s performance and his responsiveness or lack thereof to treatment and recommended that the applicant undergo treatment and that his responsiveness be determined.  

On 6 January 1999, the Chief of the CMHA prepared a memorandum which indicated that the applicant had been undergoing treatment in the clinic since November 1998, for a subjective report of depression specifically pronounced during winter months, and that he had failed to adequately respond.  The CMHA Chief indicated that his initial report on the applicant was consistent with a major depressive disorder, seasonal affective type, and that he initially recommended treatment was light therapy.  However, given the applicant’s poor attendance at therapy sessions, a trial of medication was initiated by the attending clinical psychiatrist, who was treating the applicant.  

At the conclusion of this treatment it was determined, by competent medical authority, that the applicant’s prognosis for recovery, in part based on his own level of motivation, was poor.  Because of this, it was concluded that the applicant’s mood would likely continue to improve but his performance would not. 
The CMHA Chief further commented that the applicant would continue to be a drain on unit resources and given this he was medically clearing the applicant for any administrative action deemed appropriate by the command.  

On 1 March 1999, an academic evaluation report (AER) was prepared on the applicant which indicated that he had failed to achieve course standards.  The AER comments stated that the applicant had unsuccessfully completed the academic standards of the FA OBC course.  The applicant received unsatisfactory ratings in written communications, oral communications, leadership skills, and in his contribution to work group.  

The AER codified that the applicant did not demonstrate the academic potential for selection to higher level schooling and training.  In addition, it indicated that he had failed to meet the standard for the gunnery module of the course and as a result had been recycled into another class.  Further, comments in the remarks section of the AER stated, in effect, that applicant was consistently a disciplinary problem and that he had been given several opportunities to improve his performance in the OBC, but had failed to respond to these rehabilitation efforts. 

Finally, the AER verified that a faculty board had met, and after considering the applicant’s low scores and disciplinary problems, recommended that he be relieved from the course and that his commission be terminated.  The findings and recommendations of the faculty board were concurred with and approved by the commandant of the school.  Accordingly, the applicant was dropped from the OBC course for failing to meet course standards and he was processed for separation.

On 1 March 1999, the adverse AER was referred to the applicant by his unit commander.  The applicant acknowledged receiving the report and submitted a statement of rebuttal.  The statement indicated that the AER did not accurately reflect his personal problems as reflected and verified in his medical records.

On 3 May 1999, the applicant was discharged, under the provisions of paragraph 2-37 of Army Regulation 600-8-24, by reason of failure to complete course of instruction.  His service was characterized as honorable and at the time of his separation he had completed just 9 months and 29 days of active military service.

Army Regulation 145-1 prescribes policies and general procedures for administering the Army's Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (SROTC) Program.  Paragraph 3-41 contains guidance on scholarship cadets.  It states that a Department of the Army Form 597 (Army Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps Scholarship Cadet Contract), must be completed by the ROTC scholarship recipient.  

The evidence of record includes a DA Form 597-3, dated 21 August 1995, which was signed by the applicant.  This form contains the contract requirements for the applicant’s participation in the ROTC scholarship program.  It states, in pertinent part, that the law establishes the cost of the applicant’s education under the ROTC scholarship program as a debt owed to the United States.  A provision of this contract states, in effect, that if a member fails to complete the active duty commitment incurred, either voluntarily or as a result of misconduct, they would be required to reimburse a prorated portion of the ROTC scholarship money received based on their total service obligation.  

Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges) prescribes the policy on officer transfers from active duty to the Reserve Component and discharge functions for all officers on active duty for 30 days or more.  Paragraph 2-37 provides the rules for processing involuntary release from active duty (REFRAD) and termination of Reserve appointments of student officers attending branch orientation courses.  

The officer separation regulation states, in pertinent part, that a Reserve Component (RC) officer with less than 3 years commissioned service will be released from active duty and discharged from his or her USAR commission when the officer fails to meet the standards of service schools due to misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, academic or leadership deficiencies, or by resigning from a course. 

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The Board noted the applicant’s contentions, which stated that he should have been medically discharged and that he should not be required to reimburse the government the ROTC scholarship program money he received.  However, the Board found these claims are not supported by either the evidence of record or the independent evidence submitted by the applicant.

2.  The evidence of record shows that, at the time of his discharge processing, the applicant was found to have met the medical fitness standards for retention by competent medical authority.  Further, it is clear from the record that the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing him medical treatment and performance counseling.  However, the applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts.  

3.  The AER issued to the applicant verifies that he failed to achieve course standards in the FA OBC based on both his low scores and his disciplinary problems.  Further, his relief from the course and separation processing was the result of a recommendation by a properly constituted faculty board, which was approved by the appropriate authority.  The Board was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Therefore, the Board found no basis for changing the reason for the applicant’s discharge. 

4.  In his DA Form 597-3 (Army Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps Scholarship Cadet Contract) the applicant acknowledged that, by law, the cost of his education under the ROTC scholarship program was considered a debt owed to the United States.  He further stated his understanding that if he failed to complete the active duty commitment incurred, either voluntarily or as a result of misconduct, he would be required to reimburse a prorated portion of the ROTC scholarship money received based on his total service obligation.  Given his agreement to the terms of this contract and the basis for his discharge, the Board found that remission of his ROTC scholarship debt was not warranted.  

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___mm__  ___jhl___  ___js____  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000038967	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/06/29	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1999/03/01	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 600-8-24	
DISCHARGE REASON	Failure to complete course of instruction.	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 293	128.1000	
2. 189	110.0000	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.