MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:             30 January 2001                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2000041724

	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. Walter Avery, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaughnessy		Member	
	Ms. Brenda F. Hirschi		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: That her military records be corrected to show that she did not breach her Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) contract.

APPLICANT STATES: That in December 1992 she joined the Wisconsin Army National Guard (ARNG) for the GI Bill, Tuition Assistance and loan repayment benefits.  In 1996 after speaking with a Gold Bar Recruiter she applied for and accepted a two year ROTC scholarship.  She then left the ARNG and joined the University of Wisconsin at La Crosse’s ROTC program.  She understood the program would pay for two years of college and she would be commissioned an officer in the US Army Reserve (USAR).  After entering the ROTC program, she learned of other programs that had benefits that exceed those of the ROTC two year scholarship.  She believes the Gold Bar Recruiter misled her by not telling her of these other programs.  She also learned that there was a great chance that she may be placed on active duty for four years after graduation, which would have severely impacted her career choice of teacher.  Due to the misleading information and harassment, she concluded that the ROTC program was unprofessionally run.  She left the ROTC program and rejoined the ARNG in 1998.  After rejoining the ARNG she was informed that she no longer qualified for the GI Bill and had to repay the ROTC scholarship.  She states this is all due to the Gold Bar Recruiter who gave her misleading information and an unprofessional ROTC program.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records were not provided to the Board.  The information herein was provided by the applicant.

The applicant authored a letter to DFAS offering a payment of $1500.00 to settle her ROTC contract indebtedness.

On 8 October 1999 the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) informed the applicant that her offer of a compromise had been disapproved.

A letter from her Unit Readiness Noncommissioned Officer states that upon rejoining the ARNG the applicant asked about her eligibility for the GI Bill.  An inquiry was made and it was determined that the applicant’s involvement in ROTC had made her ineligible for the GI Bill.

On 20 April 2000 DFAS informed the applicant that she had a debt to the government for $5,077.84.

Department of the Army Circular 601-00-2 (ROTC Gold Bar Recruiter Program), provides, in pertinent part, that Gold Bar Recruiters are second lieutenants who are temporarily assigned to ROTC programs prior to attendance to their officer basic course.  These officers may assist in recruiting, but must work under the direct supervision of an officer.
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.  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 records are in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

2.  Despite the allegations that the ROTC program was unprofessional and poorly run, the Board disagrees with her contention that it is the responsibility of the Gold Bar Recruiter to inform her of all officer accession programs.  It appears that she was properly recruited for the ROTC program.  The applicant made a personal decision to improperly disenroll from the ROTC program.  As such, she has no legitimate reason for her failure to comply with the terms of her scholarship contract.  Her refusal to enroll in ROTC classes can only be viewed as willful evasion of her scholarship contract.  Therefore, the Board concludes that the actions taken by DFAS to collect the ROTC scholarship money paid on her behalf is proper.

3.  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

___aao__  ___teo___  ___bfh__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000041724	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010130	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	104.03	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.