Performance Review Board

My son is just finishing his sophomore year of his NROTC college scholarship.

Over the weekend, he was citied by Campus Police for underage drinking -- this is a fine akin to a traffic ticket where he goes to school and will not appear on his record.

The bigger issue is that he now has a Performance Review Board hearing before the end of the semester. He self-reported the incident to his ROTC command and is obviously very concerned about his standing.

Does anyone have any experience with how ROTC handles underage drinking?

It is a panel of officers and the result will be based on their ruling. He will be allowed to present his case.
Since this concerns his future as a Naval Officer and he is contracted he may want to consult with legal counsel.
IMO - he should take this seriously.

Thanks

My limited research shows that any sort of disenrollment hearing would be a separate hearing. Is that accurate?

The PRB can recommend disenrollment and if the Captain accepts that recommendation than a specific hearing is held. Or does the single PRB hearing cover both topics.

The PRB is just Naval staff only - no family members or attorney? Is that correct?

Good Point. This is a question for your son to ask. However, I would not wait to consider legal representation until the results of the PRB.
Your son is entitled to legal representation. I don't know what, if any input would be allowed from family members.

As a Contracted MIDN - he MAY be entitled to free legal counsel through the military. He needs to find someone with whom to discuss the process as well as his rights.

I say "MAY" because all members of the military have access incuding SA cadets and midn.

ROTC cadets and midshipmen are exempt from the UCMJ.

Therefore, any "hearings or investigations" as well as punishments would not take place via Captain's Mast or Article 32 hearing.

Not sure where you are going with this Luigi?
An Article 32 is under UCMJ. Even if he went to Article 32 he is still entitled to legal representation.

The reality is the cadet can lose their scholarship, they sign an honor code, and most universities make all students sign a "I won't drink underage" oath. If that puts him in trouble with the school, it will jeopardize his scholarship. Certain colleges take underage drinking very seriously, I know my neighbor's DS was booted from our DS's college for underage drinking violation when he was a freshman. The frats on his campus do not have alcohol in the houses because the school is that tight. Kids work the system by having an off site frat house.

The positive is he did the right thing by self-reporting the issue because it shows his moral character. Additionally, no commander wants to find out this via the campus police or the university academic board.

It happens, yes, you will be at their mercy, but don't start thinking it is all over. Make sure you discuss this openly without criticism on how he is going to get the command to trust him more than the other cadets in his yr group. You need him to understand that next yr is the yr they will determine his career path, and if he wants UPT he needs to understand that those slots are fought for and now he has a mark he needs to prove was just a youthful indiscretion and not typical of his personal qualities.

BTW if you get to the pt where they rec disenrollment, the reality is the fat lady is already singing, and it really is just a formality. Even if you win, you lost, because that will be on their cadet record and it will follow them to their 1st base.

Just_A_Mom said:

Not sure where you are going with this Luigi?
An Article 32 is under UCMJ. Even if he went to Article 32 he is still entitled to legal representation.

Click to expand...

My point is that it CANNOT go to an Article 32, as "Article 32" is specifically for those who fall under the UCMJ, which ROTC cadets do not.

My point is that any hearing or investigation, as well as punishment, will not fall under the UCMJ (as it does for SA cadets/mids) but under ROTC conduct rules and/or regulations.

I don't believe they are entitled to legal representation. I agree with Luigi, it is handled in house. The cadets signed legal contracts, and if by ROTC standards they defaulted, then they defaulted, in this case it would come from not performing to the universities drinking requirements.

The cadet would not be released per se for underage drinking as a cadet, he would be released because the school nailed him as a student, and that could be a violation regarding his scholarship.

This is why everyone should read the fine print when they accept a scholarship.

Also family is not invited to speak because the way ROTC sees the cadet is the same as any SA, the child is no longer a minor, they are a legal adult, thus the parents have no voice. It would be as if the parent tried to obtain any info on the progress of their child at the det. The det would not release that info to the parent.

Luigi59 said:

My point is that it CANNOT go to an Article 32, as "Article 32" is specifically for those who fall under the UCMJ, which ROTC cadets do not.

My point is that any hearing or investigation, as well as punishment, will not fall under the UCMJ (as it does for SA cadets/mids) but under ROTC conduct rules and/or regulations.

Click to expand...

Right but a separation hearing doesn't have to fall under UCMJ. I never said it would fall under UCMJ and I don't know what you are getting at exactly.

This ROTC cadet has a hearing that will affect his future in the Military. It could cause him to be separated and have an affect if he ever desires to re-enter the military.
He absolutely should seek legal counsel. I do not know the specifics of what is allowed but I believe that should he be forced to a such a hearing he is entitled to legal representation. Regardless of UCMJ status or not.
In any case, Legal counsel will find out his rights and advise him correctly.

PIMA - he could be separated on a morals or conduct clause. Even a non-scholarship contracted cadet can be separated. Not every contracted cadet has a scholarship, but every scholarship cadet is contracted.
If he was NOT contracted (or scholarshiped) there would be no separation - they would just decide not to contract him.

Furthermore, if he is separated he could be facing a big tuition bill from the Navy. He needs LEGAL COUNSEL!!!!!

He can hire legal counsel, but I highly doubt that the attorney versed in military law would say hire me. There are not a lot of civilian attorneys versed in military law out there.

The reality is most likely would be revocation of the scholarship due to conduct, and they will have 3 things to prove immediately that the cadet failed to uphold his side regardless of the situation.
1. Scholarship agreement
2. Campus police report
3. Cadet openly acknowledged the offense.

It would be seen pretty clear cut. Yes, that would mean financial hardship to the family, but in the end of the day as I said before READ THE FINE PRINT.

NOW back to the OP, PLEASE don't flip out that this is the path. Most likely, his hands will be slapped, he may lose his summer training slot and they will keep a hawkish eye on him for the next yr. As I sad before your concern should be if the university has placed themselves into this from an academic standing. If they have, that is where you have problem. If they place him on probation or kick him out, than the scholarship is in true jeopardy, and along with his future as an officer in the Navy. If the campus, slapped his hands and walked away from the issue than you are sitting better.

I will say this, he should be thankful he is NROTC, because if he was AFROTC his scholarship would most likely be revoked and his career would have been over. AFROTC is tightening up, and cadets who did not get Summer training this yr are being released from their scholarship. (No payback, but no more money or commissioning).

He can hire legal counsel, but I highly doubt that the attorney versed in military law would say hire me.

Click to expand...

Actually a lawyer versed in military law would take his case - at least find out and advise him of his rights. They can also help if the separation is effected and the Navy sends a bill. That is what they do.

Any further speculation as to the outcome of this or any other hypothetical case is really unwarranted. Each case has it's own specifics including people handling it.

Just_A_Mom said:

Right but a separation hearing doesn't have to fall under UCMJ. I never said it would fall under UCMJ and I don't know what you are getting at exactly.

Click to expand...

What I am "getting at" is an attempt to clear up any misunderstanding anyone may have about the legal status of a ROTC cadet/mid verus an active duty (i.e. Service Academy) cadet/mid.

YOUR statement...

JustAMom said:

I say "MAY" because all members of the military have access incuding SA cadets and midn.

Click to expand...

...could be confusing to those who may believe that an ROTC cadet/mid is a member of the military. They are not.

Stop trying to read so much into every one of my posts. I am not "getting at" anything other than a clarification of your confusing statement.

JustAMom said:

He needs LEGAL COUNSEL!!!!!

Click to expand...

I concur 100%. But it would be a 100% civilian affair, with no military/UCMJ rights and/or protections as would be the case with an active duty SA cadet/mid.

Scuba Fan: My son is an NROTC Mid and he told me that the most common reason for PRBs in his unit is underaged drinking. The unit reviews the behavior and determines the status of the Mid. I agree with the person who said this is a board by the cadre of the unit and their recommendation is then given to the CO for a decision. I think just relax and let the PRB take its course. In all likelihood, he will be reprimanded but allowed to continue with his scholarship, if this is a first offense. Then he needs to make darn sure it never happens again. Best of luck...let us know how it turns out.

Scuba

A friend's son did exactly that early in his first year of NROTC. He was reprimanded and allowed to keep his scholarship. He did the same thing at the end of the freshman year (this was self-reported) and he lost it all. FWIW.

For what it is worth also---- husband as a AROTC PMS had to deal with this issue several times in his program. The extent of the punishment will in part depend on the university response and attitudes regarding underage drinking. First offense (at our school) was generally severely reprimanded and verbally "threatened within an inch of their life" allowing the cadet to know that if they strayed off the path "one millimeter" they were gone.

Second offense for this issue or any other issue could result in dismissal.

Bringing in legal counsel really seems to be a bad thing to do particularly given the fact that the cadet has violated both campus and ROTC policy. If I was a cadet looking for leniency and the opportunity for a second chance, the very last thing I would do would be to bring in legal counsel to "hassle" those uniformed officers and non-commissioned officers who might be determining both my short-term and long-term fate.

A more reasonable approach seems to be a very repentent attitude and a serious reevaluation of goals; realizing that ROTC scholarships/ SA appointments are serious business in which it is the cadet's responsibility to perform at the very highest level possible ( at all times) or risk losing everything. I think that is a very hard concept for young adults to grasp, sometimes until it is too late.

The very best of luck to you and your cadet and I truly hope that everything works out well in the end!

Scuba Fan
I forget to also say the fact that your cadet self-reported, when he didnt have to or hope that the ROTC cadre wouldn't find out demonstrates a lot about his character.

The fact that he stood up admitted his offense, unprompted, and accepts responsibility and will be a top-notch model ROTC cadet who has learned his lesson, should absolutely go a long way in helping his case.

He made a mistake, we all make mistakes but it is how we accept responsibility and deal with those mistakes that reveal our true character!

I agree with House, bringing in counsel escalates the issue and truthfully the child in this instance has already admitted guilt. Finesse is what is needed in this situation. The cadet is a sophomore, he will have 2 more yrs in that det if he is allowed to stay, he will need the det commander to support him for his career, the commander is not going to feel strongly about a cadet that because they brought in an attorney he kept him. In the end, without command sponsorship he is going nowhere fast. The command could have the last word, just 2 yrs later by making sure his military dream does not happen.

ROTC is different than the SA's in many ways. To get your AFSC (AF) you wll meet a board that reviews every ROTC cadet in the nation. For example, slots for UPT are available after they have handed out the SA cadets. What is left over goes to ROTC. They then hold a board, rack and stack every ROTC cadet, from there you get your career assignment. In that file is your ROTC history with your academic history and your ECs. In your ROTC history you will have the det commanders rec., positions held within the det, your summer training, and any other additional pertinent info. In this case the cadet may have this incident in the file as other pertinent info. You need to be realistic that this will affect the board's decision.

The det. may also determine to sweep this incident under the rug due to youthful indiscretion. They may say this is a great cadet who was stupid. However, as House and I have both stated their hands will be tied if the university is getting involved. You can hire an attorney, but if it was my child I would hire the attorney to expunge this from the university side. No record on the university side unties the ROTC dets hands.

It really isn't just about the det. It is like a web, right now the priority would be to expunge the charge from the university police because they are the spider spinning the web...no spider, no web.

The cadet should be fine because they are not in the AFROTC program. If they were, I would say it actually is over since they are reducing their officer force to a large degree. I talked to DS yesterday about his bag drag for summer training, during the conversation I asked what was the % of cadets going? His response was the commander had said at the bag drag that this was the lowest % he had ever seen in 3 yrs that got a slot. They only had @35-40% of the class given a slot, in good yrs it was 80%. He went onto say that they should be proud of themselves, but he had to go now to explain the harsh reality to the others not selected that they need to step it up. That according to the AF they were missing something in their file. The commander also stated that one of the breaking points for acceptance was a 3.2 gpa. Anyone under it did not get a slot.

Pima said:

I don't believe they are entitled to legal representation. I agree with Luigi, it is handled in house. The cadets signed legal contracts, and if by ROTC standards they defaulted, then they defaulted, in this case it would come from not performing to the universities drinking requirements.

The cadet would not be released per se for underage drinking as a cadet, he would be released because the school nailed him as a student, and that could be a violation regarding his scholarship.

This is why everyone should read the fine print when they accept a scholarship.

Also family is not invited to speak because the way ROTC sees the cadet is the same as any SA, the child is no longer a minor, they are a legal adult, thus the parents have no voice. It would be as if the parent tried to obtain any info on the progress of their child at the det. The det would not release that info to the parent.

Click to expand...

The reality is everyone is entitled to legal counsel, that being said when I was in the military I saw "in house disciplinary hearings" and those sailors were told they have the right to counsel but going down that path makes the tone of the hearing completely different. I would not disagree with that statement. I am not sure I would lawyer up if it were me. I would request a meeting with the Div-O or LCPO to see what their thoughts on the matter are. I agree with the character issue he did the right thing in self reporting now he just has to take the lumps so to speak. First offense self reported depending on how lenient the command is probably just a remark in his service jacket or what ever they use, that he was counseled and if this is the last incident it will probably never be brought up again.

One may consult with legal counsel without attempting to engage the attorney directly into the hearing. In fact, I agree that not only may legal counsel not be permitted in the hearing, it may not be wise.
There are benefits from getting legal counsel - including preparing for the hearing itself if the Midn is going to be testifiying in front of a board.
The other reason is if dismissal occurs then a Midn may be faced with a hefty bill for their education.