BOARD DATE: 1 August 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002335 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x_____ __x______ __x_____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 1 August 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002335 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. ___________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. BOARD DATE: 1 August 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002335 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 requests correction of his military records by showing he fulfilled his debt to the U.S. Government by joining the California Army National Guard (CAARNG). 2. The applicant states it was an injustice that the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) turned over his scholarship to a collection agency while he was still a full-time student. DFAS has mismanaged his debt and caused him financial harm because proper notices were not delivered. He has been trying to resolve this issue for a year without success. He further states in a one-page narrative: a. He received a call from the Company Executive Officer (XO) of the U.S. Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) at the University of California, Davis (U.C. Davis), informing him that he needed to go to his office immediately. When he arrived, he was told that due to the downsizing of the military, the ROTC Department had to reduce the number of cadets in the program. Because he was sent home from the Leaders Development Advanced Course (LDAC) with a shoulder injury, he was being disenrolled from the program. The applicant explains that he had sprained his shoulder the night prior to an Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) and had documentation from a doctor to place him on profile to allow his shoulder to heal. Despite having recommendations from a number of officers and noncommissioned officers at LDAC stating they wanted to see him at LDAC the next summer, he was disenrolled anyway. b. He was told he could not leave the office until he signed the disenrollment papers. He was not afforded an opportunity to review the documents or think about his options. He was not given the time to review his finances to determine if he could even afford to pay back the scholarship. He was not given the opportunity to call his father to ask for advice or to see if he would be able to help him afford the cost of the scholarship. The only options he was given was to drop out of college and immediately enlist in the Army or pay back the scholarship debt. He was not given an option to serve in the ARNG as a commissioned officer. c. He was told by the XO, who was a member of the ARNG, that if he chose to pay back the scholarship debt, it would be forgiven as soon as he enlisted in the ARNG. He enlisted under a 6-year contract with the CAARNG. After he enlisted in the ARNG, he called DFAS and found out his debt would be forgiven only if he enlisted in the active duty Army. He states the XO told him several times that enlistment in the ARNG would forgive his debt. d. He has not been able to make payments towards the scholarship debt because he had no income as a full-time student. He had always intended to become a member of the CAARNG. He was told a lie and he is paying the price for it. e. He called the supply technician at U.C. Davis to return the equipment he was issued, but only got a voicemail. While he was camping, the technician returned his voicemail. He called back to schedule an appointment, again he was unable to reach the technician. He left a couple more messages, but he has not been contacted and still has every piece of equipment cleaned and ready for return. 3. The applicant indicates he provided copies of his enlistment contract and a sworn statement; however, neither were received. He did provide: * 1-page sworn statement, unsigned and undated * Academic Transcript, U.C. Davis, issued 20 March 2014, showing Bachelor of Arts Degree in Psychology awarded 13 September 2013 * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) ending on 5 March 2015 * DD Form 2384-1 (Notice of Basic Eligibility), dated 18 March 2015 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. A memorandum for the applicant, dated 12 June 2012, subject: Disenrollment from the U.S. Army Cadet Command, Fort Knox, Kentucky, as filed in his military records, states: a. He was disenrolled from the ROTC Program due to failure to meet the same requirements of the APFT and Army weight control program as required by active duty Soldiers. b. When the ROTC scholarship contract is breached, any obligation to the Army must be satisfied through order to active duty in an enlisted status or by repaying the cost of advanced education assistance provided by the Army. Additionally, the memorandum stated that an enclosure provided details of his debt in the amount of $14,593.34. c. The memorandum offered him two options on the enclosed addendum consisting of either paying the debt in a lump sum or initiating a repayment plan. He was advised that if he chose a lump sum payment, to provide a certified check payable to the Treasurer of the United States. If he chose to initiate a repayment plan, DFAS would provide him a repayment schedule. He was given 14 days from the date of the memorandum to return his decision to the Commander, U.S. Army Cadet Command at Fort Knox, Kentucky. 3. On 14 April 2014, the applicant enlisted in the CAARNG in the rank of specialist, pay grade E-4. 4. A letter from DFAS written to the applicant's Congressional representative, dated 25 September 2014, shows his Congressional representative was advised concerning the amount and status of the applicant's debt and that certain debts could be considered for remission. Specific information and enclosures were provided for the applicant's information and possible use. 5. A DD Form 214 shows the applicant entered active duty for training (ADT) on 4 August 2014 as a member of the CAARNG. He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 15U (Helicopter Repairman). He was released from ADT on 5 March 2015 with an honorable characterization of service. He was transferred to Detachment 1, Company D, 1st Battalion, 126th Aviation, in Stockton, California. REFERENCES: Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) provides that the Board begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends that his military records should be corrected by showing he fulfilled his debt to the U.S. Government by joining the CAARNG. 2. The available evidence shows the applicant was disenrolled from the ROTC Program due to his failure to meet the APFT and weight control program requirements. Furthermore, the evidence of record indicates he was properly notified by the Commander, U.S. Army Cadet Command, of his options and afforded ample time to make a decision concerning his repayment options. 3. In his statement, the applicant admitted he was given two options: either enlist in the Regular Army or repay the scholarship debt. 4. The applicant did not provide any substantiating documentation showing he was unjustly disenrolled because he had an injury to his shoulder. 5. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed the applicant was properly and timely informed of his options concerning his disenrollment from the ROTC Program. It appears he did not want to enter active duty right away and chose to join the CAARNG based on the unsubstantiated advice of a third party, who the applicant later found out was wrong. There is no apparent error or injustice in this case. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160002335 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160002335 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2