PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:            31 October 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000041866

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub		Member	
	Ms. Brenda F. Hirschi		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests that her active duty for training (ADT) orders be corrected to show she was ordered to active duty (not ADT).

3.  The applicant states that she volunteered to go to Fort McCoy, WI to help support Operation Desert Shield.  She was not sent there to train; she was sent there to support the 5064th Adjutant General prepare soldiers to deploy.  She did not discover this would be a problem until she applied for a job that required Veterans Preference or Veterans Readjustment Appointment (VRA) status.  Civilian Personnel told her that it was obvious to them that she was not on active duty for training, but because the orders stated she was on ADT they could not grant her Veterans Preference or VRA.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that she had prior service in the Regular Army and was released from active duty on 16 August 1984.  She was assigned to a Troop Program Unit on 1 March 1986.

5.  Orders 018-008, Headquarters, 84th Division (Training), dated 17 November 1990 ordered the applicant to ADT for 29 days to provide administrative support for Operation Desert Shield.  Orders 032-050, Headquarters 84th Division (Training), dated 21 December 1990 ordered the applicant to ADT for an additional 29 days to provide administrative support for Operation Desert Shield. 

6.  A Letter of Commendation dated 1 December 1990, a Certificate of Achievement dated 22 February 1991, and an Army Achievement Medal certificate dated 14 April 1991 verify that the applicant supported Operation Desert Shield activities during the “ADT” periods cited in the two orders noted above.  

7.  Army Regulation 135-200 prescribes policies and procedures for ordering USAR soldiers to annual training, ADT, and active duty for special work.  In pertinent part, it states that the primary purpose and content of ADT is training.  ADT will not be used to meet real or perceived manpower shortages to perform organizational missions or administration, or to augment the Active Army.  

8.  Army Regulation 135-210 prescribes policies, responsibilities and procedures for ordering individual soldiers of the USAR to active duty during peacetime.  Under guidance prescribed by this regulation, soldiers will be voluntarily ordered to peacetime active duty to fill actual or anticipated vacancies in the Active Army or for temporary tours of active duty (TTAD) in support of an essential Active Army mission.  TTAD is voluntary active duty performed in support of the Active Army.  The objective of the TTAD Program is to use a soldier’s primary or duty 

skill to accomplish a specified Active Army essential mission.  TTAD may be used to perform a wartime (support) mission assigned to the Reserve components under current mobilization/operational plans.  This is only in limited duration contingency situations.  The Secretary of the Army or the Director of Staff Management, Office of the Chief of Staff will serve as final approval authority for TTAD.  Chapter 3 states that an Active Duty Report, DD Form 220, will be issued for TTAD of 89 days or less.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board concludes that an injustice has occurred in this case.  

2.  ADT orders were not appropriate or authorized by regulation based upon the reason for which the applicant was ordered to active duty (“the primary purpose and content of ADT is training”).  TTAD orders would have been appropriate since TTAD may be used to perform a wartime (support) mission assigned to the Reserve components under current mobilization/operational plans.  The applicant’s order to active duty to administratively support Operation Desert Shield fits this criteria.  

3.  It appears that the applicant was ordered to ADT rather than TTAD due to time constraints in effect during the Operation Desert Shield emergency.  However, now the effect of that “quick fix” is to deprive her of certain benefits to which she would otherwise be entitled.  

4.  Due to the passage of time, it would be difficult to amend the applicant’s ADT orders to reflect they were TTAD orders.  However, it would be appropriate to issue the applicant a DD Form(s) 220 to show she served on active duty.  The DD Form(s) 220 should be shown to potential employers in lieu of her ADT orders.

5.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That the applicant be issued a DD Form(s) 220 covering the 29 day period beginning 19 November 1990 and the 29 day period beginning 26 December 1990. 

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

__eja___  __alr___  __bfh___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

			Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000041866	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001031	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.