- 15 -
i.e., for 33 months, and therefore the award meets the
requirements of subdivision (B) of the proposed regulation.
Respondent next argues that petitioner has failed to meet
the requirements of subdivision (C) of the proposed regulation.
Pursuant to that paragraph, the fellowship payments petitioner
received in 1989 and 1990 are to be treated as granted prior to
August 17, 1986, only if petitioner was not required to reapply
to NIH to receive the fellowship grant. Respondent argues that
petitioner fails to comply with the requirements of subdivision
(C) because he was required to submit an application to NIH in
conjunction with his request to transfer his fellowship to CUNY.
The appropriate inquiry on this issue, in our view, is
whether the original notification of award received by petitioner
required him to submit additional NRSA applications as a
condition to receiving continued fellowship support. In that
regard, we note our finding above that the award notice received
by petitioner was a firm commitment to provide fellowship support
for 33 months. We find no evidence that petitioner would have
been required to reapply to NIH to receive the approved
fellowship support had he remained at Drexel and demonstrated
satisfactory progress toward his Ph.D. degree throughout the
award period.
As the events transpired, however, petitioner withdrew from
Drexel after obtaining a 1-year leave of absence from his MARC
fellowship and thereafter sought to transfer the suspended
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011