ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD DATE: 26 April 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160017424 APPLICANT REQUESTS: dismissal of ROTC debt. APPLICANT’S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * self-authored letter * self-authored letter to President of the ROTC Board * letter from applicant's father to ROTC * self-authored letter in response to disenrollment * self-authored rebuttal to ROTC Board * self-authored letter regarding disenrollment * disenrollment memorandum * notification of disenrollment * acknowledgement or disenrollment * Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) memorandum regarding debt * federal payment applied to debt FACTS: 1. The applicant states: * Virginia Tech Corp of Cadets and Army ROTC continuously made errors in accusations, charges, processing, appeals, notifications and ultimately the decision to dismiss him and then to collect debt incurred for scholarship * he is appealing the decision by the US Army Cadet Command and US Army to disenroll him from the ROTC program * the drawn out process over the last 2 years has caused his family and himself great hardship * he did not deserve disenrollment from the ROTC program * disenrollment far exceeds reasonable punishment for his alleged infractions * the processes and procedures by the ROTC program are questionable * he was initially notified of disenrollment on 30 July 2014 * that disenrollment was withdrawn * he received a second disenrollment notice on 17 October 2014 * he did not know but ROTC had submitted a debt collection for his monthly stipend for June through August 2014 * he was notified by MY ID Care there was a debt collection on his credit report in January 2016 * if he was not disenrolled until October 2014, his stipend was valid through October 2014 * the debt was invalid and should not have been submitted * he asks the Board to review the documentation he submitted and render a decision on his behalf * he believes the disenrollment was not justified and subsequently any debt incurred is not valid 2. The applicant was an ROTC scholarship recipient. The applicant's service records are void of and the applicant did not provide the signed scholarship contract. 3. The applicant was notified on 31 July 2014 he was being disenrolled from the Army ROTC as per Army Regulation 145-1 (Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps) under the provisions of paragraph 3-43a(16), which states disenrollment will occur if there's a breach of contract . Breach is defined as any act, performance or nonperformance on the part of a student that breaches the terms of the contract regardless of whether the act, performance or nonperformance was done with specific intent to breach the contract or whether the student knew that the act, performance or nonperformance breaches the contract. 4. The applicant acknowledged he received the notification, he had the right to consult with counsel or a legal advisor, and his scholarship may be irreversibly offered to another qualified applicant. The applicant signed the acknowledgement on 14 August 2014. The applicant further declined a delayed call to active duty and an expedited call to active duty. 5. The applicant submitted a memorandum for record signed by his father in reference to a phone conversation the father had with Human Resources, Army ROTC. The memorandum states: * his son was dismissed from ROTC in May 2014 * the letter his son received said he could petition the VA Tech Corps of Cadets for readmission after 6 months * the applicant received notice of disenrollment on or about 3 July 2014 based on breach of his ROTC contract due to his dismissal from the VA Tech Corps of Cadets * the applicant had to make a decision to accept the dismissal with no hearing and complete admission of guilty with no chance to dispute or challenge anything or he could request a hearing * once VA Tech Corps of Cadets dismisses a cadet, the Army has no say in the manner and the ROTC hearing is just a formality and could not change the outcome * the Human Resources employee stated there was no sense in having a hearing since the Army's hands were tied * the applicant asked for a hearing and a non-lawyer officer to assist him in the process of the hearing * the applicant's father received a phone call from the Human Resources representative stating the dismissal from Army ROTC initiated on 31 July 2014 was being redone * the Corps did not address the actions they based their decision on in the original dismissal * a new notification was going to be given to his son with the offenses the applicant had been accused of * he believed this may work to the applicant's benefit because the applicant would be able to present evidence on his behalf that might address the alleged offenses; however the Professor of Military Science (PMS) had already decided not to readmit the applicant back into the Army ROTC because of the alleged offenses * the Army ROTC was having difficulty finding an officer to assist the applicant and still have two officers to conduct the hearing * they found an officer to assist the applicant and he had previously sat as the head of these proceedings and was well experienced * the applicant's father received another call from the Human Resource Office employee saying the applicant would receive notice of disenrollment on 17 October 2014 the new disenrollment would reference misconduct in addition to being dismissed from the VT Corps of Cadets * the Board would have to be conducted soon either in person or via Skype but Skype had to be requested in writing * the real evidence addressed in the hearings are submitted written statements * that is what is used in determining recommendations a s a result of the hearing * the applicant's father asked about the previous statement regarding a decision already being made regardless of the outcome of the hearing * he attempted to explain that was not the case and no decisions had been made * the conversations between the previous PMS and the new PMS regarding re-admittance of the applicant may have been in regards to the initial disenrollment * they had not spent more than 5 minutes discussing the disenrollment action * the Human Resource Office employee apologized if there was a misunderstanding * the regulations required a hearing board to make recommendations that go to the PMS * the PMS makes his recommendation to the Commanding General of Cadet Command for decision 6. The applicant requested a Board prior to his disenrollment. The Board was approved; however, his service records are void of and the applicant did not provide a copy of the Board proceedings. The applicant submitted a self-authored letter to the President of the Board which states: * he asked for the hearing because by not doing so he would have irrevocably, completely voluntarily and knowingly waive all of his rights * he disagrees with his dismissal from the Virginia Tech Corps of Cadets and potential disenrollment from Army ROTC * he makes no excuses for the mistakes he made, they were serious mistakes * he learned from his mistakes * he was punished by the Corps of Cadets * he completed his punishment * a second minor incident was taken out of context, which caused him to be dismissed from the VT Corps of Cadets * he believes that decision was wrong and he appealed it at the time; his appeal was denied * there were inaccuracies and mitigating circumstances in both incidents and he took actions to correct his mistakes * he was stopped by a VT law enforcement officer when walking to his dorm * he was scared and knew he had made a serious mistake * he was ordered to write a statement in which he incriminated himself by following orders and refusing to lie and admitting the misconduct * there was no arrest and there is no arrest record * his PMS said it was as if it never happened * he made an appointment with his physician and sought counseling on his own * the review of his doctor and counselor was that he did not have a serious or significant problem but was a college student doing what college students do * he appeared before a hearing and was found to have committed regulation by failing to obey an order and alcohol offenses * he was afraid of the hearing officer and received no advice from his chain of command prior to the hearing * there were no Army officers advising him and he admitted to the violations, which he should not have done * he's talked to a civilian lawyer in Colorado Springs and Army officers , they all agreed he did something wrong but didn't do anything other Army officers and college student have done, the punishment was justified * he was stopped by the VT officer after he had parked his car * the officer could not have seen him driving into the parking lot * he did not see the applicant get out of his car and stumble * the officer was not in the line of sight of where he had parked his car * he was left as a target of opportunity * he should not have agreed to take a breathalyzer * he did not see the results and to his knowledge the officer had not shown them to the individuals who made statements * there is no record or proof of the applicant's BAC level * the officer did not see the applicant driving his vehicle * he was 21 years of age at the time of the incident * there is no evidence he was driving while impaired * there is no proof or solid evidence he consumed alcohol resulting in a BAC of .15 * there is no evidence his conduct was unbecoming a cadet * he was respectful and courteous at all times * there was no evidence his safety or anyone else's safety was ever at risk * the second incident was taken out of context * he was studying for finals and drinking a Diet Coke * some other students asked if he wanted some rum and poured it into his Diet Coke * he went back to his room to continue studying * there were first-year female cadets on the floor; however, he did not consume alcohol with them * his roommate's sister, a first year cadet, entered his room looking for her brother * he did not offer her any beverage and she did not ask for any * he received notice that he had been dismissed from VT Corps of Cadets in May 2014 * he believes the dismissal was unfair and excessive * he knows his mistakes in February were significant he completed the punishment for that * he thought ROTC was a time and place where young cadets/officers could learn, grow, take risks, make mistakes, and learn from them * he read an article from Admiral McRaven regarding leaders fail * he admits he failed and did not get it right the first time and failed again * he will not quit but can't afford to attend VA Tech without a scholarship * he exhausted his college funds and savings * he has taken out loans to enroll at Colorado State University (CSU) * he applied for summer jobs and found a position at the Air Force Academy * he attempted to join CSU ROTC without a scholarship * the PMS at CSU talked to his original PMS * he was told that CSU had no unfilled slots * he is willing to accept a non-scholarship slot at CSU if it can be worked out * he regrets the mistakes he made the last six months as VA Tech ROTC * the disenrollment and hearing are the toughest things he's ever done * he's talked long and hard with his parents, his father is disappointed * his father has never stopped supporting him * the process he's gone through with the disenrollment and hearing will make him smarter and much more mature * he will use the results of the hearing as a life lesson * he will one day be in the position of the ROTC Board and will remember the hearing and the circumstances leading up to it * he will be better prepared to make the right decision when that times * he asked if the officers of the board ever made mistakes * he's an Army brat and has heard a lot of stories about great Americans who had done far worse than he did * he asked for positive recommendations to allow him to finish an Army ROTC program with no restrictions, he requested forgiveness of the monetary obligation, and allowed to finish his undergraduate degree at CSU without obligation in any way to the US Army 7. The applicant was notified on 25 August 2015 of his disenrollment from the ROTC Program under the provisions of Army Regulation 145-1 paragraphs 3-43a(14) and (16). Paragraph 3-43a, states undesirable character demonstrated by cheating on examinations, stealing, unlawful possession, use, distribution, manufacture, sale (including attempts) of any controlled substances, as listed or defined in 21 USC 812, discreditable incidents with civil or university authorities, falsifying academic records or any forms of academic dishonesty, failure to pay just debts, or similar acts. Such acts may also be characterized as misconduct. The total amount of monies spent in support of his education was $41,968.50. 8. The applicant submitted a memorandum to the Commander of Cadet Command regarding his disenrollment which states, * he is appealing the validity of the debt of $41,968.50 based on the unjustified and unwarranted disenrollment from ROTC and the financial hardship incurred on his part as a result of the debt * he admits his conduct was less than perfect but the disenrollment is not warranted * he's shared his cadet story with other Army officers and the common theme is the disenrollment was an overreaction and not justified * he deserved punishment but the evidence does not support disenrollment from the program * he's learned he may not have been bullied but he was intimidated and afraid when he went before the Board * he was ordered to write statement incriminating himself * he was not afforded guidance or counsel * when he traveled to VT for his appeal hearing he was taken off guard because he was not asked any questions * he was told to state his case * the board of officers were less prepared to conduct the hearing than he was to appear before them * the disenrollment process is flawed * the first initiation was done to make him quit * when he didn't quit they stated their initial disenrollment was inadequate and incorrect so they initiated a second disenrollment * it took over 60 days to be notified of the board results * he asked that the debt to the government be forgiven in full 9. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained on 20 March 2019, from the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff G-1. The advisory official recommended the Board disapprove the applicant's request for relief. The applicant declined to serve on active duty in lieu of repaying his scholarship benefits. A copy of the complete advisory opinion has been provided to the Board for their review and consideration. 10. The advisory opinion was sent to the applicant on 20 March 2019 so he could respond. He states: * during the disenrollment he was told he was not eligible to voluntarily serve in the US Army until 3 years after his disenrollment * his declining to serve was not voluntary * the alleged misconduct was not accurately addressed in the regulation paragraphs * the disenrollment and punishment were not warranted * the Army officers he shared his story with agree he should have been punished * they believe the disenrollment action was not supported by the evidence * he reiterates the statement he made after the board was completed * his tax returns for the past 3 years have been garnished by the Army * he has not received any funds and expected his 2018 return to be garnished too * he reiterates the debt for his college stipend of over $40,000 * he requests that the debt to the government be forgiven in full BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found the relief was not warranted. The applicant’s contentions, letter of support, and the advisory opinion were carefully considered. He was properly disenrolled and received due process by the ROTC command. There is no evidence he served on Active duty at a later date in which the Board could consider. Based upon the preponderance of evidence, the Board agreed there was no error nor injustice, and the debt is valid. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : 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 the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. 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. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTES: Not Applicable. REFERENCE: Army Regulation 145-1 prescribes policies and general procedures for administering the Army Senior ROTC Program. a. Paragraph 3-43a specifies that scholarship cadets may only be disenrolled by the Commanding General, ROTC Cadet Command. b. Paragraph 3-43a(4) specifies that (4) Because of withdrawal or dismissal from the academic institution. A former cadet may be reenrolled if he or she enters a school that offers ROTC, provided that he or she meets the reenrollment criteria. c. Paragraph 3-43a(14) Undesirable character demonstrated by cheating on examinations, stealing, unlawful possession, use, distribution, manufacture, sale (including attempts) of any controlled substances, as listed or defined in 21 USC 812, discreditable incidents with civil or university authorities, falsifying academic records or any forms of academic dishonesty, failure to pay just debts, or similar acts. Such acts may also be characterized as misconduct. d. Paragraph 3-43a (16) specifies that disenrollment will occur if there's a breach of contract . Breach is defined as any act, performance or nonperformance on the part of a student that breaches the terms of the contract regardless of whether the act, performance or nonperformance was done with specific intent to breach the contract or whether the student knew that the act, performance or nonperformance breaches the contract. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160017424 2