- 16 -
portions of his fellowship grant to CUNY. In these particular
circumstances, we find that petitioner's submission of an
application to NIH for the sole purpose of transferring his
existing fellowship grant to a new institution does not run afoul
of the requirements of subdivision (C) of the proposed
regulation. As long as petitioner continued his Ph.D. studies
(at an approved institution), a firm commitment to provide him
with a total of 33 months of funding remained. Based on our
review of the record in this case, we find that petitioner was
not required to reapply to NIH in order to secure fellowship
funding in future academic periods. We also find that the
transfer of the unused portion of petitioner's fellowship award
to CUNY after his 1-year leave of absence from his Ph.D. studies
at Drexel demonstrates a firm commitment to provide support to
petitioner for a total of 2 years and 9 months, as requested in
his original MARC application.
The above analysis does not apply, however, to petitioner's
request for a 1-year extension of his MARC fellowship after it
became apparent that he needed additional time to complete his
Ph.D. degree. Petitioner submitted the extension request on
April 27, 1990, and it was granted shortly thereafter. The
additional funding petitioner received pursuant thereto cannot be
considered part of his original MARC award, which, as described
above, was a firm commitment to provide fellowship support for 2
years and 9 months. Consequently, we hold that the fellowship
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