formersoldier
Junior Member
Hello, I am trying to find out if it is possible to sue the Army for breach of contract. My dispute is long and a bit complicated, but please take the time to read and ask any questions that you may have.
I am a former United States Army Captain who was serving on Active Duty. I received the unfortunate news that I was selected for elimination from the Army, resulting from a Reduction in Force board. Even more concerning was the news that my option to attend graduate school will be voided. The Secretary of the Army, Mr. John McHugh, confirmed the results of the board, thus voiding and breaching my contract.
When I signed my initial commissioning contract, I agreed to complete an additional three years after my initial four year ROTC service obligation was completed, in exchange for the option to attend a fully funded graduate school program of my choosing (also called GRADSO). In addition, I was to be given a full salary and benefits while attending school. When I was involuntarily separated from the Army on April 1st, 2015, I was 47 days short of finishing the three years that I was contractually obligated to complete in exchange for the option to attend graduate school (95.6% complete). The graduate school contract is unique. Most incentive-based contracts offer the incentive up front (cash lump sum, duty station of choice, etc.) in exchange for additional obligated service time. The graduate school contract offered this incentive after all or a portion of the obligated service time is complete (as some officers began exercising their GRADSO options before the 7 years was complete). When a Soldier receives a bonus and is thereafter chaptered out of the Army for misconduct before the "re-up" term is complete, a portion of that bonus is recouped or not paid to the chaptered Soldier. My situation is the inverse of this. I completed 95.6% of my extra three year term and I have not received any portion of the benefits listed in my graduate school contract. I am entitled to recoup 95.6% of the value of my graduate school contract from the Army.
I served honorably during my Army career, including two deployments, one to Iraq and one to Afghanistan. I have never received a "Suspension of Favorable Actions" flag during my Army career. I was selected for the board because I received a "non-left justified" evaluation or an average evaluation. I was not breaching my contract by receiving an average evaluation, as there is no regulation that states this will cause any suspension of favorable actions. The Army allowed me to continue to serve well into my additional 3 year service obligation (which I was completing in exchange for graduate school) and then backed out of their end of the contract at the last minute. I was never offered the option to depart service while I was completing this three year service obligation and would have completed it if given the opportunity. I was expected to complete this extra 3-year service obligation and did not have the option to back out of my end of the contract.
I submitted a Congressional Inquiry and received the following response from G1, HQDA: "This Board, convened under the authority of Section 638a, Title 10, United States Code, is one of the Army's tools to reduce end strength in compliance with congressional mandates," and, "Since Captain's separation date March 31, 2015 is mandatory under 10 USC as sited above, he will be unable to attend funded graduate education at Army expense as he will not be on active duty and no longer affiliated with the active component after that date." This response is inadequate, as it does not address the points that I fulfilled 95.6% of my service obligation and that the Army did uphold their end of the contract. I understand that the reduction in force is a Congressional mandate, but if the Army did not want to breach my contract, they should have chosen somebody else to eliminate and exempted individuals from the board with this contract stipulation.
I spoke in person to the Commanding General of the Army Human Resources Command, who told me that I will likely not be afforded the opportunity to attend graduate school. There are about 40 other Captains who signed similar contracts and were selected by the board, so their contracts were presumably breached as well. I have been in contract with many of these individuals as well.
I more recently submitted a Presidential Inquiry/complaint, submitted a complaint to the Army Board of Corrections, and even tried e-mailing the office of the SECDEF directly. I received a nearly identical response from the Presidential Inquiry as from the Congressional Inquiry and did not hear anything back after e-mailing the SECDEF. The Army Board of Corrections sent me a similar response as to the Presidential and Congressional Inquiries, and they added that, "there are no provisions within Army policy to provide funded graduate education for officers not on active duty and not affiliated with the active component." I have made every attempt to handle this issue "in-house" and have afforded the Army ample time to resolve the issue. I did not wish to pursue legal action, but it seems that senior Army leadership is unwilling to address this issue.
I am a former United States Army Captain who was serving on Active Duty. I received the unfortunate news that I was selected for elimination from the Army, resulting from a Reduction in Force board. Even more concerning was the news that my option to attend graduate school will be voided. The Secretary of the Army, Mr. John McHugh, confirmed the results of the board, thus voiding and breaching my contract.
When I signed my initial commissioning contract, I agreed to complete an additional three years after my initial four year ROTC service obligation was completed, in exchange for the option to attend a fully funded graduate school program of my choosing (also called GRADSO). In addition, I was to be given a full salary and benefits while attending school. When I was involuntarily separated from the Army on April 1st, 2015, I was 47 days short of finishing the three years that I was contractually obligated to complete in exchange for the option to attend graduate school (95.6% complete). The graduate school contract is unique. Most incentive-based contracts offer the incentive up front (cash lump sum, duty station of choice, etc.) in exchange for additional obligated service time. The graduate school contract offered this incentive after all or a portion of the obligated service time is complete (as some officers began exercising their GRADSO options before the 7 years was complete). When a Soldier receives a bonus and is thereafter chaptered out of the Army for misconduct before the "re-up" term is complete, a portion of that bonus is recouped or not paid to the chaptered Soldier. My situation is the inverse of this. I completed 95.6% of my extra three year term and I have not received any portion of the benefits listed in my graduate school contract. I am entitled to recoup 95.6% of the value of my graduate school contract from the Army.
I served honorably during my Army career, including two deployments, one to Iraq and one to Afghanistan. I have never received a "Suspension of Favorable Actions" flag during my Army career. I was selected for the board because I received a "non-left justified" evaluation or an average evaluation. I was not breaching my contract by receiving an average evaluation, as there is no regulation that states this will cause any suspension of favorable actions. The Army allowed me to continue to serve well into my additional 3 year service obligation (which I was completing in exchange for graduate school) and then backed out of their end of the contract at the last minute. I was never offered the option to depart service while I was completing this three year service obligation and would have completed it if given the opportunity. I was expected to complete this extra 3-year service obligation and did not have the option to back out of my end of the contract.
I submitted a Congressional Inquiry and received the following response from G1, HQDA: "This Board, convened under the authority of Section 638a, Title 10, United States Code, is one of the Army's tools to reduce end strength in compliance with congressional mandates," and, "Since Captain's separation date March 31, 2015 is mandatory under 10 USC as sited above, he will be unable to attend funded graduate education at Army expense as he will not be on active duty and no longer affiliated with the active component after that date." This response is inadequate, as it does not address the points that I fulfilled 95.6% of my service obligation and that the Army did uphold their end of the contract. I understand that the reduction in force is a Congressional mandate, but if the Army did not want to breach my contract, they should have chosen somebody else to eliminate and exempted individuals from the board with this contract stipulation.
I spoke in person to the Commanding General of the Army Human Resources Command, who told me that I will likely not be afforded the opportunity to attend graduate school. There are about 40 other Captains who signed similar contracts and were selected by the board, so their contracts were presumably breached as well. I have been in contract with many of these individuals as well.
I more recently submitted a Presidential Inquiry/complaint, submitted a complaint to the Army Board of Corrections, and even tried e-mailing the office of the SECDEF directly. I received a nearly identical response from the Presidential Inquiry as from the Congressional Inquiry and did not hear anything back after e-mailing the SECDEF. The Army Board of Corrections sent me a similar response as to the Presidential and Congressional Inquiries, and they added that, "there are no provisions within Army policy to provide funded graduate education for officers not on active duty and not affiliated with the active component." I have made every attempt to handle this issue "in-house" and have afforded the Army ample time to resolve the issue. I did not wish to pursue legal action, but it seems that senior Army leadership is unwilling to address this issue.
Last edited:
