RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF

	BOARD DATE:           19 February 2004                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR203088770

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

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. Robert L. Duecaster		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).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:  

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, forgiveness of his $3,634.62 debt to the government.  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he has a debt for scholarship monies he received as a cadet in the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) at the New Mexico Military Institute.  He states that he left the Army ROTC program after the spring semester of 1998 after having received two semesters of college tuition.  He incurred the debt shortly thereafter for failure to fulfill his military service obligation.  He states that he was granted a waiver of payment of the debt until his completion of college.  He states that he ended up going back into the ROTC on a scholarship for which he received payment for three semesters of tuition.  He was ultimately commissioned in the United States Air Force (USAF) and entered active duty on the day he graduated from college.  He indicates that it is his belief that the debt should be waived completely because he is now serving out his military obligation.  

3.  In support of his application, he provides copies of the 17 documents listed on the enclosed application support documents list.  

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  The applicant’s record shows that as of the date of his application to this Board, he was serving on active duty in the USAF.  

2.  On 28 August 1998, the applicant was informed in a memorandum from the Fourth Region, United States Army Cadet Command (USACC), that his case had been reviewed and it was determined that he was in breach of his scholarship contract based on his failure to meet established Army Physical Fitness Test and Army Weight Control Program standards.  He was also advised that under the terms of his contract, the Army had the right to order him to active duty as a private/E-1; however, given the circumstances of his case, he would be given the opportunity to repay the cost of the scholarship financial assistance he received in lieu of the Army exercising its right to order him to active duty.  

3.  On 1 July 1998, the applicant was discharged from the NMARNG.  On 
27 October 1998, he was disenrolled from the Army ROTC program.  

4.  On 4 March 1999, DFAS advised the applicant that based on his enrollment in the Oklahoma State University and his completed promissory note agreeing to pay his debt in installments, collection of his debt was suspended through 
6 February 2000. 

5.  On 30 April 2001, the applicant entered into an USAF ROTC contract at Oklahoma State University and a USAF Reserve contract.  

6.  On 12 February 2002, the applicant requested cancellation of the debt he incurred based on his not completing the Army ROTC program at New Mexico Military Institute.  

7.  On 11 May 2002, the applicant was appointed a second lieutenant in the USAF Reserve, and on 9 June 2002, he was ordered to an extended tour of active duty.

8.  A DFAS account statement, dated 13 March 2003, confirms that the applicant is indebted to government in the amount of $3,634.62.  

9.  In connection with the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Director of Personnel and Administration, USACC.  It indicates that the applicant’s Army ROTC records had been destroyed due to the passage of time.  However, research revealed that the DFAS established the applicant’s debt based on his breach of his Army ROTC contract, which resulted from his failure to meet the requirements of the Army Weight Control Program and Army Physical Fitness Test standards, as specified in his scholarship contract.  It further states that once the applicant’s debt was established, USACC had completed its administrative requirements.  It further indicates that voluntary enlisted service in the USAF ROTC program and subsequent commissioning in the USAF is not an authorized remedy for repayment of scholarship funds expended under the terms of the Army ROTC contract.  Finally, the USACC recommends that the applicant’s debt not be reduced based on his USAF service.  

10.  On 27 May 2003, the applicant was provided a copy of the USACC advisory opinion in order to have the opportunity to rebut its contents.  To date, he has failed to respond.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s claim that his Army ROTC scholarship debt should be cancelled based on his subsequent completion of the USAF ROTC program and his appointment in the USAF was carefully considered.  However, this factor does not provide a sufficient basis to grant the requested relief. 

2.  As confirmed in the USACC advisory opinion, the applicant failed to meet  the Army Weight Control Program and Army Physical Fitness Training standards required by his Army ROTC contract.  Therefore, his subsequent service in the USAF does not relieve him of the responsibility to repay the scholarship fund debt he incurred as a result of breaching his Army ROTC contract.  

3.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was accepted into an Army ROTC scholarship program and that he failed to satisfy the contractual requirements of this program.  At the time he breached the contract, the applicant was offered the opportunity to repay the debt in lieu of being ordered to active duty as a private/E-1, and he accepted this option.  The applicant was not presented the option of completing his service obligation through enrollment in the USAF ROTC program or through service in the USAF.  

4.  The applicant has failed to provide any evidence or argument that shows that there was an error or injustice related to his disenrollment from the Army ROTC for breach of contract or to his being required to repay the scholarship money he received based on his Army ROTC contractual obligation.  

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.  

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__RJW__  ___MM __  ___RLD   DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

		Raymond J. Wagner
		   CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003088770	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2004/02/19	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	N/A	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	N/A	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	N/A	
DISCHARGE REASON	N/A	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.