IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 October 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080010604 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant and his wife request reconsideration of the Board's denial of the applicant’s request to remit his entire Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) scholarship debt. 2. The applicant and his wife state that the applicant served over a year in Ramadi, Iraq, and he is a disabled veteran. The applicant states that he believes he does not owe the debt as prorated by this Board and provides the reasons for that belief. Those reasons center on the applicant only receiving two semesters worth of ROTC benefits. The applicant also outlines the problems he has encountered with the recoupment of his ROTC scholarship debt and how that has adversely affected his life. 3. The applicant provides the Board’s prior consideration of his case. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20060014845 on 7 June 2007. 2. The applicant’s contention that he does not owe the debt prorated by this Board because he only received two semesters worth of benefits is a new argument and requires that the case be reconsidered. 3. In its first consideration of the applicant’s request, the Board prorated the applicant’s ROTC debt based on him having served 16 months and 2 days of active duty as a Guardsman and him having a 2-year active duty service obligation as a result of his disenrollment from ROTC. That resulted in the Board reducing the applicant’s ROTC debt from $17,300.00 to $5,478.36. 4. In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Cadet Command. The Cadet Command stated that the Board erred in its first consideration of the applicant’s request, that the applicant actually had a 3-year active duty service obligation as a result of his disenrollment because he entered Military Science III on 25 May 2004. As such, the Board should have prorated his debt to $9,418.80 and not $5,478.36. The Cadet Command recommends that since the applicant has already received a very generous partial relief of his debt, the balance owed should stand with no further reductions. The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion and given the opportunity to respond. He did not respond. 5. The applicant’s scholarship contract, DA Form 597-3, Part II, paragraph 6b, states that ROTC scholarship cadets who are called to active duty for breach of contract during Military Science (MS) III will be ordered to active duty for 3 years. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. Since the applicant was in MS III, in accordance with his scholarship contract he would have been ordered to active duty for 3 years if he had not opted to pay his ROTC scholarship debt. 2. While the Board erred when it prorated the applicant’s scholarship debt based on a 2-year active duty service obligation, administrative finality requires that the Board’s decision remain unchanged. 3. The fact that the applicant served in Iraq with his Army National Guard unit has been considered. However, the applicant agreed to repay his scholarship debt. The Board afforded the applicant clemency when it accepted his active duty in the Army National Guard to prorate his ROTC debt. There is no provision of law or regulation to prorate an ROTC scholarship debt based on active duty served as a Guardsman. 4. To grant the applicant’s request would be providing him a benefit not afforded to other ROTC scholarship cadets who have been disenrolled for willful evasion.  His active duty service obligation was 3 years. To satisfy his ROTC scholarship debt he would have had to have served 3 years of active duty. 5. The active duty service obligation incurred by the applicant is not contingent on the number of semesters of college paid under his ROTC scholarship contract. 6. While the applicant may believe that more of his tuition should have been paid under his ROTC contract, and he believes that his debt is being collected unfairly, the Board has no authority over the payment or collection of funds. That is a matter handled by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service. 7. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____X___ ___X____ ___X___ 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20060014845 dated 7 June 2007. _______ _ X _______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080010604 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080010604 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1