DISCUSSION LIST: POSSIBLE CHANGES TO DOD MOU

A. Protect Institutional Discretion in Academic Matters 1. Item 3.d: SOC principles and criteria This provision has prevented a number of institutions from signing the MOU, and we believe it would be preferable to strike this provision in its entirety and instead replace with language that more directly serves its intended purpose. Strike and replace: d. Adhere to the Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges (SOC) Consortium Principles, Criteria, and Military Student Bill of Rights (located at http://www.soc.aascu.org/socconsortium/PublicationsSOC.html). SOC principles are based on the principles set forth in the Joint Statement on the Transfer and Award of Credit (available at http://www.acenet.edu/Content/NavigationMenu/ProgramsServices/CLLL/Joint.htm), which were developed by members of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, the American Council on Education (ACE), and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. Disclose its transfer credit policies and, to the extent practicable within the framework of its institutional mission and academic policies, evaluate academic credits eared at other accredited institutions of higher education in conformity with the principles set forth in the Joint Statement on the Transfer and Award of Credit developed by members of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, the American Council on Education, and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. Disclose its policies with regard to the award of academic credit for prior learning experiences and, to the maximum extent practicable, provide transparency and clarity for Service members regarding institutional policies on award of credit for experiential learning opportunities provided by the U.S. Armed Forces. Disclose to Service members any academic residency requirements pertaining to the students program of study, including any final year, or final semester residency requirement at or before the time the student enrolls in the program. 2. Item 3.e: Military transcripts Strike the following section: e. Recognize, accept, and award credit where appropriate, from the Army/ACE Registry Transcript System, the Sailor/Marine ACE Registry Transcript System, the Community College of the Air Force (CCAF), and the Coast Guard Institute transcript as the official sources of military training and experience documentation with corresponding college credit recommendations, when processing the individuals documented educational plan.

We believe our suggested language for section 3.d addresses the issue raised here. However, we would appreciate a fuller explanation of the intent behind this provision as the current phrasing is extremely confusing. While we generally agree that schools should not dismiss the award of credit for military experiences out of hand, we caution that the specific wording used in discussing these issues is extremely important. For example, the word consider may have specific meaning in the credit evaluation context that could lead to unintended consequences. 3. Item 4.c: Education plans We would appreciate an explanation of the current requirements for education plans for institutions participating in the TA program, and the extent to which this section is meant to indicate a change from current law. We recommend modifying this section based on concepts included in the DoDs clarification as follows: c. Educational PlanDegree Requirements (1) Institutions will provide an evaluated educational plan shall disclose general degree requirements to the Service member and his or her Service. These requirements, typically articulated in the institutions course catalog, should include the total number of credits needed for graduation, and divide the coursework students must complete in accordance with institutional academic policies into general education, required and elective course. They should also articulate any additional academic requirements, such as a passing grade in any comprehensive exams or completion of a thesis or dissertation. (a) Within 60 days after the individual has been accepted for admission; or (b) After all required transcripts have been provided; or (c) After the individual has completed 6 semester hours with the institution; whichever comes first. (2) In addition to providing degree requirements, the institutional shall, to the maximum extent practicable, inform Service members with previous coursework from other accredited instituions as to how many, if any transfer credits it intends to award within 60 days after the individual has been admitted into a degree program and all required transcripts have been provided. (2) (3) Institutions will submit a new evaluated educational plan degree requirements when a Services education advisor approves a change in the Service members educational goal program. (3) (4) When an educational plan is issued, institutions will not add, delete, or change course requirements after the student accepts the educational plan and begins the course of study. Education plans will be valid for no fewer than five years. Degree requirements in effect at the time of each Service members matriculation will remain in effect for a period of at least five years, provided that the Service member is in good academic standing and has been continuously enrolled or received an approved academic leave of absence.

B. Additional Clarifications The following is a list of technical corrections and clarifications that are needed to ensure consistency with institutional practices and other federal and state requirements. The larger goal here is to ensure that the wording of the MOU reflects reasonable and workable expectations that are clearly understood by all parties. 1. Item 4.a: One single tuition rate Rewrite this provision to reflect language in the clarification as follows: All Service members attending the same institution, at the same location, enrolled in the same course, will be charged the same tuition rate without regard to their Service component. Educational institutions will have one single tuition rate for all Service members enrolled in the same course, regardless of Service component, within a specific Office of Postsecondary Education identification number (OPE ID). The OPE ID is assigned by the Department of Education to institutions approved to participate in Federal student financial aid programs. This single tuition rate includes active duty Service members, members of the Reserve Components (RCs), and the National Guard and Reservists who are activated under Title X and using Title X Military Tuition Assistance, in order to assure that tuition rate distinctions are not made based on the Service members branch of Service. It is understood tuition rates may vary by mode of delivery (traditional/on-line), at the differing degree levels and programs, and residency designations (in-state/out-of state). Tuition rates may also vary based on full-time or part-time status, daytime vs. evening classes, or matriculation date, such as in the case of a guaranteed tuition program. It is also understood that some states have mandated state rates for guard and reservists within the state. (Those Guard and Reservists not activated on U.S. Code Title X orders). Where appropriate, education institutions will determine tuition and fees for service members in the Tuition Assistance program in accordance with state law. 2. Item 4.b and 4.j: Transmitting student information to Services The requirements in 4.b and 4.j require institutions to provide a variety of course enrollment and student specific information to the issuing Services education office subject to the specific requirements of each specific Services reporting system. These provisions require a variety of information on course enrollment, withdrawal, completion, grades, billing information, class rosters, and military graduations. Institutions have reported difficulty with complying with the unique requirements of each Services data systems. For example, some institutions report that they need to enter information manually because the Service system will not accept batch information. Institutions have also reported difficulty reporting grades in that some Services do not allow them to indicate a plus or minus when submitting the grade, which puts the institution in the position of submitting

inaccurate student grade information. We strongly recommend that DoD and the Services work to implementing a single and consistent data reporting system that will streamline the reporting of necessary information regarding TA recipients. We urge the DoD to develop technology interfaces for popular Student Information Systems (SIS) modules to enable institutions to deliver such reports without undue hardship. Institutions should also be allowed to submit data exports in standard formats as an alternative to the use of proprietary systems. We also ask the MOU and addenda reflect reasonable timeframes for the provision of various pieces of information. For example, grade information may not become available until several weeks after the course has been completed. In addition to these administrative difficulties, institutions have reported concerns about whether the transmittal of this information to the Services comports with FERPA and other privacy requirements. We recommend that the MOU be modified to clearly indicate that institutions are not required to submit student information through Service specific portals if the provision of this information would be a violation of applicable federal privacy laws, including FERPA. We are continuing to work on suggested language to help address these reporting concerns and related FERPA issues. 3. Item 4. e. 3: Pell grants This clause contradicts Department of Education rules and harms Service members by delaying receipt of crucial financial aid funds at the beginning of the term. We recommend that Section 4.e.3 be modified, consistent with the clarification, as follows: DoD TA recipients, who also qualify for Pell Grants through the Department of Educations student aid program, shall have their TA benefits applied to their educational institutions account prior to the application of their Pell Grant funds to their account. Unlike TA funds, which are tuition-restricted, Pell grant funds are not tuition-restricted and may be applied to other allowable charges on the account. 4. Item 4.f (2): Tuition refunds We recommend that this provision be modified in keeping with the clarification to read: TA will be limited to tuition and reimbursable fees that are specifically required as a condition of enrollment in a particular course or term of enrollment of the member in that educational institution, are charged to all students, and are 100% refundable to the same extent as tuition in accordance with the institutions tuition refund policy. At a minimum, tuition and fees must be 100% refundable up at until at least the start date of the course. 5. Item 4.f(3) Tuition for Servicemembers cant exceed non-military rate We think this issue is already covered by language in 4.a. We agree that in no case should a servicemember be charged a higher rate simply due to the fact that he is a servicemember, but

there are many different reasons why the rates charged could vary. It seems this language is not adding any protection that we cant cover in 4.a, so wed suggest striking it here and improving the 4.a language instead. 6. Section 4.f(4)Tuition and fees structure This section includes a reference to on the installation. If this provision is meant to apply only to programs offered on installation/bases, we suggest it be moved to part 5 of the MOU. If it is meant to apply to all programs, this reference should be deleted. It also references a single educational institution, at a single location and we are not clear what is meant here. Finally, the language requires changes in tuition and fees structure be provided not fewer than 90-days prior to implementation. We note that tuition and fee structures for some public institutions are set by state law and are outside the control of the institution and may occur in a shorter timeframe. Therefore, we recommend modifying this language as follows: These changes should be provided in a timely manner, and to the maximum extent practicable, not fewer than 90 days prior to implementation. DoD acknowledges that for some public institutions, changes to that tuition and fee structures are a result of state law, and as such are outside the control of the institution, and may occur in a shorter timeframe. 7. Item 4. h. (2): Textbook purchases This clause requires institutional representatives to counsel students to refrain from purchasing course materials prior to confirmation of sufficient enrollments for conduct of the class which is overly prescriptive and can conflict with HEA required textbook policies. Modify section 4.h.(2) as follows: Institutional representatives shall refrain from encouraging or requiring students to purchase course materials prior to confirmation of sufficient enrollments for conduct of the class. 8. Item 4. i. 3: Indicating branch campus on diploma This clause prohibits institutions from indicating on a diploma or other credential that the program of study was not conducted at its main administrative and academic center. Clarification is needed to allow large, multi-campus institutions, particularly public university systems, to indicate on the diploma the specific campus or branch of the institution from which the student received his or her degree. 9. Item 4.j Electronic reports and response within 14 days

As discussed above, sections 4.b and 4.j require institutions to provide various student information to the Services subject to Service specific data requirements and systems. Section 4.j. would require institutions to supply electronic reports within 14 days of a request being received. These reports include, but are not limited to, information on TA transactions, final course grades, withdrawals, degrees awarded, documented education plans, courses offered, etc. We recommend rewriting this section to incorporate from the clarifications two key points: (1) that all reporting and transmitting of this information shall be done in conformity with all applicable privacy laws, including FERPA; and (2) that institutions shall respond to these requests in a timely fashion which will vary based on the specific nature and scope of the information requested. We also suggest that additional clarifications about the nature of these reports (e.g., evaluation process to be used, individualized or aggregated format, paper or electronic delivery, etc.) to help institutions better determine their ability to comply with the request in a timely fashion. Finally, as mentioned above, we believe that these reporting requirements could be streamlined with the creation of a single reporting system. 10. Item 6.b: Changes to MOU and its provisions Item 6(b) in the MOU does not take into possible changes in state laws that could have a bearing on the agreement. We request that the phrase state or be included before Federal law. 11. Service Addenda purpose statements First, we suggest that the requirement for compliance with all Service addenda be dropped. It makes no sense to require small institutions with only one or two Service members from one branch to commit themselves to full compliance with all the requirements of other branches. This all or nothing approach would serve as a strong disincentive to participation by institutions that may well be excellent venues for Service members, but that dont enroll enough of them to justify the costs involved. Second, for the same reason as stated above, we would suggest that compliance with the additional requirements of each branch be required only when a reasonable enrollment threshold for Service members from that branch is reached.

Each of the four Service addenda includes a purpose state, and we are unclear about reasons for referencing DoD civilian employees, eligible adult family members, and non-DoD personnel. We suggest that the following modification: The purpose of this agreement is to provide guidelines and procedures for the delivery of educational services to Service members, DoD civilian employees, eligible adult family members, military retirees, and non-DoD personnel not covered in the DoD [MOU] to students

eligible to participate in the Military Tuition Assistance program through the [U.S. Air Force/Navy/Marine/Army] 12. Air Force and Army: Acceptance of payment by credit card The Air Force and Army Addenda both require institutions to accept payment of TA benefits by government-issue credit card. Some institutions do not currently have systems in place to accept payments by credit card. We suggest that the MOU include language that tracks DoDs clarification on this issue. Specifically, the provision should clarify that a Service is permitted to grant a waiver to an institution from these requirements, but that institutions should understand that this waiver may result in a delay of payments. This will allow the Services to determine whether reasonable grounds exist to justify a waiver. 13. Air Force Item 3.c: Indemnification The clause has many potential implications, especially for public institutions. For example, the language creates Constitutional conflicts with respect the principle of sovereign immunity. Furthermore, due to state laws, many public institutions do not have the authority to offer indemnification to other parties. The sweeping language of this provision is highly problematic and we ask that it be stricken. 14. Marine Corp Item 2.b.3: Provide all course materials As written, the clause could be interpreted to mean that the institution will be responsible for providing for all materials and supplies, including computers, pens, and paper. We ask that you tighten the language to accurately reflect the intent. 15. Marine Corp Item 3.b: Invoices to include student Social Security Numbers (SSN) Due to heightened and legitimate concerns about the use of SSN, many institutions do not use SSN. It is possible that some states may prohibit state agencies from sharing SSN with outside entities. To address this issue, we request that MOU be corrected to allow institutions to use another form of appropriate identification for the TA students. 16. Navy Item 2.c.5: Respond to email in 1 day and establish toll free phone service The provision requires that schools strive to respond to email from student within 1 workday. We believe that the language should be changed to encourage institutions to respond to email within a reasonably prompt period of time. The provision also requires institutions to provide toll free phone service for academic counseling purposes. This would apply to both domestic and internationally based students. We recommend that the language be modified to include an n size of TA students that must be met before the requirement for a toll-free number becomes applicable.

17. Navy 2.d: Disputes resolved by commanding officer This provision is overly broad as institutions cannot agree that the commanding officer is the final decision maker for all disputes. For example, Provost, faculty council or graduate faculty Senate policies typically determine who has final jurisdiction on academic matters. We recommend this provision be stricken. 18. 2.e. (2): Educational program operated outside the United States We understand that DoD intends this clause to refer specifically to institutions operating on military installations outside the United States, and we would suggest that the language be tightened to reflect this intent. Many institutions have study abroad programs that operate outside the U.S. 19. 3.c: Requiring compliance with DoD and Service regulations We think this requirement is already well understood and is redundant of other provisions in the MOU such as sections 2.f, 2.e(1), and 3.a(2). We recommend consolidating the language on this concept so that it is clearly stated once in the document.