Again, thank you for your acknowledgement of receipt of my inquiries. Unfortunately, the University of Phoenix (UOP) has repeatedly denied me a defined explanation which pertains to my unique situation. In its place, UOP has only quoted general excerpts from their university policy and any attempt to seek clarification as to how these policies relate to my specific situation. The uniform response has been, as quoted by Raquel **, UOP Relations Lead, "It is because we say so." This explanation has been and continues to be unacceptable as I have demonstrated and provided documented evidence; provided by UOP, of continued circulated UOP misrepresentations, threats, and alternating responses in regard to these situations.
Despite the efforts of various UOP officers that continue to disregard and discredit this data to support a much simpler causation of my various situations, UOP has now increased its efforts by harassing me concerning none existing federal loans that are not due until 2017. Despite this, the generic explanations provided by UOP do not appear logically nor logistically appropriate to serve as legitimate explanation. Given the repetitive non-response provided by UOP, I shall again attempt to explain my situation singularly, in specific detail and provide additional questioning as follows:
Leave Of Absence (LOA):
As quoted by your (LOA) denial letter, "....on 09/30/09 {I} was denied because it was submitted on an invalid form and requested an absence longer than 90 days, ..." The concern here is that the invalid form was provided by UOP and was filled out via the direct instructions of a UOP representative. Based solely on this information, which can be traced specifically to the day and UOP representative, my question is does UOP engage in actions to intentionally mislead its students? If this is not the case, please provide specific documentation that disproves this statement. Currently UOP expects me to accept that the form that UOP provided and assisted me in filling out was denied because of that fact.
In regard to the Length & Number of Approved Leaves section, I am in complete agreement with the guidelines provided by UOP, especially the following section:
"Time in excess of 60 days, not to exceed 90 days per leave in any 12 month period (for a total of 180 days during a 12 month period), may be approved on exception basis unusual circumstances. These circumstances may include, but not limited to, the following issues: military reasons, circumstances covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, or jury duty."
The questions I have here is why was I denied initially when UOP supplied the form for me to fill out and also provided the representative that directly instructed me (via telephone) on how to fill out the application to cover my situation which was departing for the U.S Military? In this case, UOP walked me through step-by-step on how to fill out this form and then denied that very same form. In addition, when the form was accepted, the exact same form was resubmitted with no corrections, yet UOP accepted that. Why is this? What was different of a form that was just refaced and not altered? My final question is why wasn't my military exception granted based upon the fact that I was considered active duty status? What discriminative elements exclude me from the military exception? According to your own policies my situation was considered an exceptional situation, what part of my particular military departure allowed your UOP to discriminate my situation from others?
The break in attendance is very confusing to me and has been a source of tremendous confusion as my attempts to get a concise and definitive answer have failed and have only spawned additional questions as each response is inconsistent from the last. Due to the various contradicting responses, I have received from the UOP on this matter that Raquel ** has placed a censure on any UOP counselor or official from further discussing this issue. According to your research, I returned to school on May 25, 2010 and as a result from this lengthy break in attendance of over 180 days, a new academic year was certified.
My questions are as follows:
1. What initiated the exit process? I was told that I was academically disqualified during my LOA, by Stephanie **. In addition, I was told I received a zero for a class for a withdrawal event though I had left for the military prior to the class starting, and UOP received proper advance notice of my situation. Stephanie ** also informed that since I was disqualified, I had to wait 6 months to be readmitted. Which gives us the 2010 May 25 date?
2. If I was academically disqualified, when did UOP provide notice? Who provided the notice? To date, when I ask for a copy of this notice, I am told I cannot get a copy of this notice. Stephanie ** refused to give a copy and forwarded me to a documentation office of the UOP, that later referred me back to Mrs. Stephanie. The act date of this disqualification has also varied.
According to Raquel **, University Relations Lead, Mrs. Stephanie ** provided proper academic advisement during the time in question and had provided properly informed me of the 3.0 requirement for graduation. When I asked Ms. Raquel to clarify how this was determined, I was denied an explanation, nor was Ms. Raquel willing to discuss with me why Mrs. Stephanie decided to conduct the alleged communications, knowing that I was away in the military and unable to respond. Again, when requested to provide proof of the documentation of these communications, I was denied and not provided an explanation as to why.
The actions of Ms. ** and Mrs. ** are discriminative based upon the fact that when my wife presented her situation concerning the alleged 3.0 requirement not only was she granted the opportunity take the additional class to achieve over the 3.0 requirement, but UOP had her do so at no charge as UOP determined that the advisor did not properly provided appropriate counseling in this matter. The only variances in our situations where I was in the military, my wife was not, and she has a J.D.
Since we enrolled simultaneously, took the same MBA program, took the same classes, had the same professors, experienced similar problems with the same professor, and had the same academic advisors, do you feel that you can provide me what the discriminative element was that separated our situations, such that she would be granted the complementary class and I was not? Given the current scenario, the only difference in our situation is that I am serving in the military and she is not, but possesses a J.D.
My next question is why was I not sent to the military liaison department for UOP after acknowledging the fact that I was a military serviceman? Why did Mrs. Stephanie have me pay in order to access this entitled resource? Why did Mrs. Stephanie not acknowledge at this time {March, April, and May 2010} that there was an issue with my graduation in 2010 or 3.0 requirement? Again, please provide documentation to support your position as UOP academic policy does not cover this scenario. Why did Ms. Raquel insist that there were proofs disproving my position yet refused to provide it when requested several times?
In addition, why was I not informed of the alleged Military discounts provided by UOP? Why weren't these discounts provided by the appropriate military liaison? If UOP was aware of me being in the military, how were civilian counselors qualified to handle military personnel?
OPS571
Why does UOP refuse to answer my questions pertaining to OPS 571 and the events that transpired with the professor and me? The events that have been documented and verified by Ms. Raquel and Director ** are as follows:
1. The professor acknowledged he would receive Week 2 assignment, late without penalty as it was needed for the Final Assignment.
2. After multiple attempts throughout the 6 week course, the professor neglects to respond to various feedback requests about Week 2.
3. The lack of any student response, pertaining to the Week 2 assignment, and its impact on the final assignment.
4. The professor's feedback in week 7, after the class ended, concerning his decision to not grade the Week 2 assignment; and NOT provide the necessary assistance to help me complete the Final Assignment.
5. His blatant threat of reprisal, in email format, if I contested his decision.
According to UOP, an adjustment was provided for OPS 571, according to Carol ** J.D., Director of Academic. She instructed me that she was responsible for the determination of OPS 571 being credited and left instructions for the class to be retaken for free. This did not happen. Although the class was credited, my finance was still charged for it and also I am expected to pay out of pocket in order for UOP to replace the grade with a better one.
In retrospect of the UOP addressing this issue, could you please tell me what methodology was used throughout my academic dispute process? I have been informed by Director **, Director of Academic Affairs that the initial process of the grade dispute is an automatic denial as it primarily deals with incorrect grade inputs by UOP professors only. Given this, the second appeal attempt, allegedly, undergoes a similar process - that being an automatic denial. If this is not the case, you feel that you could provide me a specific accounting of what specific steps were taken, disproving the documentation I provided the Office of Academic Affairs, the Office of Dispute Management, and various UOP officers, consistently showing your professor's acknowledgment of his willingness to accept a weekly assignment late (without point reduction); demonstrating that professor's classroom neglect of a student requesting assistance in order to provide feedback concerning the assignment clarification with classroom assignments; and demonstrating the academic advisement neglect when your professor of OPS 571 waited until week 7, of a six week class duration, to reverse his decision to accept week 2 assignment, dismiss my requests for academic guidance concerning completing the final exam without his feedback from week 2, in an email format, and threaten fabricated reprisal should I contest his actions to UOP officials.
Again, the UOP guidelines are inadequate in providing an explanation for this. In addition, Ms. Raquel refused to provide me clarification of the research conducted and refused to share with me any details. In fact, Ms. Raquel threatened that she would bar any UOP official from speaking with me concerning this matter without explanation. To date, any attempt to contact the UOP concerning any requests in this matter are forwarded to her desk, and she has yet to return any of my calls or requests.
In conclusion, the purpose of this letter is to highlight the response that UOP provided to justify their actions for the events surrounding my situation. Unfortunately, based upon documentation provided by myself and officers of the UOP, this explanation is inadequate at best, and substantitates my claim of misreprentations provided by various UOP officials.
The responses from specific UOP counselors to my situation have been discriminative in nature, as they appear to correlate my military service and obligations as an opportunity to extend usage of my federal educational funds (i.e. Title IV) by extending my attendence at the University through unethical and illegal methods. Again, I have provided specific documentation pertaining to each situation and mentioned here and in my original complaint, originating from data provided by UOP financial and academic officers throughout email correspondence. I am again, requesting either UOP to provide specific information disproving my allegations or as I originally requested, to provide some resolution which addresses the improper actions taken by both UOP professors and counselors in dealing with my academic situation.