MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           12 March 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001060609

	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:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Member	
	Ms. Gail J. Wire		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 Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) scholarship debt of $25,000.00 be forgiven.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, she graduated from high school with honors, was awarded a ROTC four-year scholarship, and enrolled at the University of Miami in the Architectural & Engineering program.  During her first year she found it hard to get enough classes in her major, but at least the ROTC program was going well.  At the end of the freshman year she was offered the chance to withdraw without a penalty, but the thought never occurred to her to accept, instead during the summer she graduated from airborne school.  In her sophomore year she again experienced difficulty with class scheduling conflicts between academic classes and the ROTC program.  In addition, a new Professor of Military Science (PMS) took charge and a new sergeant arrived.  Although she was a top ROTC cadet the sergeant immediately began picking on her.  She informed the PMS, but he brushed it off.  At the end of the sophomore year she came to the conclusion that she was not making progress academically, was not receiving support from the ROTC program, and made the decision to transfer from the University of Miami to Oklahoma State University.  She attended the summer session in an attempt to get caught up and earned straight A’s.  When the fall semester began, she tried to juggle the workload of her junior year in ROTC along with taking a full load of Architecture and Engineering classes and was not successful.  The ROTC cadre took notice and advised her to change her major to something easier.  She did not accept that as an option.  Her academic advisor urged her to drop ROTC classes and she did, unaware of the consequences.  She points out that the University of Miami ROTC program had so many problems it no longer exists.  She believes it is unfair to assign this debt to her because she got nothing out of it.

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

She was awarded a four year ROTC scholarship and enrolled in the ROTC program at the University of Miami.  On 12 October 1992, she signed a DA Form 597-3, Army Senior ROTC Scholarship Cadet Contract.

The applicant transferred from the University of Miami to Oklahoma State University.  She started classes at Oklahoma State University in the fall of 1994.

On 25 October 1994, the Oklahoma State University PMS, notified the applicant that he was initiating action to disenroll her from the ROTC program due to her frequent absence from military science classes, labs, and physical training sessions.  The notification letter also advised her that she could consult with any reasonably available military officer (who need not be an attorney) or civilian counsel and that she may be required to repay the scholarship benefits received or that she may be eligible to choose an expeditious call to active duty.

The applicant acknowledged that she had been briefed on the terms of her ROTC contract and if found to be in breach of said contract did not desire to serve on active duty.

On 5 December 1994, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of disenrollment hearing.

On 6 December 1994, a professor and student advisor informed the Oklahoma State University, ROTC department that the applicant was a full-time student in the School of Architecture; that the architecture curriculum was difficult, extremely rigorous, and a very time consuming five-year, professional degree program.  The heavy workload combined with the demands in ROTC have lead to a lot of pressure and the applicant has realized she cannot combine architecture with ROTC and was seeking permission to drop out of the ROTC program.  He (the student advisor) would appreciate any help that could be given her.  The student advisor made no personal recommendation.

On 30 December 1994, the applicant informed the PMS, Oklahoma State University, that she would not be able to attend the disenrollment proceedings, but they should proceed.

On 18 January 1995, a disenrollment board was held at Oklahoma State University.  The board considered statements provided by the applicant and her father.  The applicant stated her complaints about the poorly run University of Miami ROTC program.  She also stated that a master sergeant repeatedly threatened her and that at the Oklahoma State University she was forced to change her major.  The board’s recommendation was that the applicant be disenrolled from the ROTC program for voluntary breach of her ROTC contract.

The University of Miami ROTC department submitted documentation to be considered by the disenrollment board.  The documents reflect that overall the cadre at the University of Miami considered the applicant a good to excellent cadet.  She was encouraged to spend more time preparing for class and improving her physical training scores.  It was noted that her peers placed her in the top third of the class.  An April 1993 counseling form reflects that her midterm grade was a 95, her final grade a 99.5 and her physical training score a 243 out of a possible 300 points. 

An academic transcript reflects that she took five ROTC classes at the University of Miami and received an “A” in each.  

The disenrollment packet and recommendation for her disenrollment was forwarded to the ROTC Cadet Command.

On 2 October 1995, the Training and Doctrine Command Staff Judge Advocate legal advisor found the applicant’s disenrollment proceedings were legally sufficient.

On 30 April 1996, the Cadet Command approved her disenrollment and advised the Defense Finance and Accounting Service to start a collection action against the applicant due to her failure to respond to correspondence.

A series of letters were sent between the applicant’s father and various officials in the ROTC chain of command.  The applicant’s father stated he did not believe that the applicant’s case was thoroughly reviewed or that every effort was made to assist her with her class scheduling conflicts.  In summary, her father was informed that the applicant’s performance while attending the University of Miami was not the bases for her disenrollment as she did not withdraw from ROTC until she attended Oklahoma State University, and that the Oklahoma State University ROTC department made every effort to assist the applicant and accommodate her retention in the ROTC program.  

As part of a scholarship enlistment in the ROTC, an individual must sign a        DA Form 597-3, which is the agreement between the Army and a ROTC cadet.  The form contains the promises made between the Army and the cadet, and includes the action the Army will take in the event the cadet fails to successfully complete the terms of the contract.  The contract speaks to the changing of an academic major, requesting a leave of absence or extension of contract.  The applicant acknowledges that she will remain a full-time student until she receives her degree.  This includes completing the required ROTC classes, which may be part of or in addition to those courses, required for her degree.  Further, that if she is disenrolled from the ROTC program for any reason she may, at the discretion of the Army, be directed, in lieu of being ordered to active duty as a private (E1), to reimburse the United States through repayment of an amount of money, plus interest equal to the entire amount of financial assistance paid by the United States for her education.

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 applicant’s contentions and allegations have been noted by the Board.  However, they are not supported by either the evidence submitted with her application or the evidence of record.  Other than her accusations, the applicant submitted no evidence of mistreatment or unprofessional conduct by the ROTC staff at the University of Miami.  It appears that despite the applicant’s personal opinion of the University of Miami ROTC staff they thought highly of her and documented that she was a good cadet.  Nothing in the records suggests improper actions on their behalf.  The applicant provides no reason as to why once she reached the decision that she could no longer participate in the ROTC scholarship program she did not: one, review her ROTC contract, and two, initiate a formal withdrawal from the ROTC program.  Either action would have made her aware of the proper procedures for withdrawal and the consequences involved.  She was offered the opportunity to consult with a military officer or civilian counsel to assist her in the disenrollment process.  She declined to avail herself of either source of assistance, but made a personal decision to break her ROTC contract, which does not support granting her request.  Further, the applicant indicated that she did not wish to be called to active duty; that left repayment as her only option.

2.  The Board finds no question of fairness in the preparation or processing of the applicant’s disenrollment for breach of contract.  Further, the Board concludes that her disenrollment from ROTC was proper and in accordance with regulatory requirements and there is no basis to relieve her of her ROTC indebtedness.

3.  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.

4.  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

__inw____  ____gjw _  ____rjw _  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001060609	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020312	
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.	128.10	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.