PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:            29 November 2000  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999032739

	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	
	Ms. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. John H. Kern		Member	
	Mr. Wilfred A. Hale		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, in effect, that his attachment to the United States Army Recruiting Battalion in Raleigh, North Carolina with duty in Greensboro, between August 1998 and October 1998, be corrected to reflect that he was in a TDY (temporary duty) status so that he can be reimbursed for expenses incurred while awaiting authorization to proceed to his permanent duty station in Turkey.  

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he had departed Fort Drum, New York en route to his new duty station in Turkey when he was notified to report to the nearest military installation pending resolution of a “stop-loss” action for inbound personnel to Turkey.  He notes that he acquired expenses as a result of his temporary attachment at the Recruiting Battalion which were not reimbursed because he was not in an “official TDY” status.  In support of his request he submits copies of his reassignment orders and copies of orders attaching him to the Recruiting Battalion.  He also submits a copy of an earlier favorable Board action completed on a soldier in the same situation.

4.  Records available to the Board indicate the applicant received reassignment orders from Fort Drum, New York to Izmir, Turkey in April 1998.  His “availability” date for travel to Turkey was 10 September 1998.

5.  On 24 July 1998 the applicant departed Fort Drum on ordinary leave en route to his assignment in Turkey.  On 20 August 1998 he reported to the Recruiting Battalion in Raleigh, North Carolina where he was attached “pending further assignment instructions from PERSCOM” (Total Army Personnel Command).  He was released from his attachment effective 8 October 1998 and was issued a new “availability” date for travel to Turkey of 20 October 1998.

6.  On 4 October 2000 the Board was advised by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) that the applicant was told to report to the nearest military installation for duty “awaiting further instructions about proceeding to Turkey.”  The advisory opinion noted, in effect, that individuals on assignment to Turkey were precluded from reporting for duty “due to a strike within Turkey” and the applicant could “not get to his new PDS [permanent duty station] in Izmir, Turkey.”  The opinion concluded that the applicant was “acting pursuant to verbal orders” and as such his request to be placed in a TDY status should be approved.  They recommended he be placed in a TDY status from 18 August to 18 October 1998.  However, the opinion also noted that reimbursement for expenses for his family members was not authorized, as there is no “travel entitlement for dependents at a TDY location.”  The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion but did not respond to an opportunity to comment on the opinion.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s travel to Turkey was interrupted by a “strike” within Turkey, which precluded his arrival in accordance with his reassignment orders.

2.  The applicant did as he was directed.  While in a leave status en route to Turkey, he reported to the nearest military installation for attachment and incurred incidental expenses awaiting instructions to proceed to his overseas destination.  Because he was merely complying with verbal orders issued by officials at the PERSCOM he should not be held responsible for the incidental expenses he incurred as a result of the attachment.  As such the Board concludes it would be appropriate, and in the interest of justice, to correct the applicant’s records to show that he was in an official TDY status while at the Recruiting Battalion in Raleigh awaiting further reassignment directives.

3.  The Board notes, however, that the applicant reported to the Recruiting Battalion on 20 August 1998 and was released from attachment effective 
8 October 1998.  As such his TDY status should run from 20 August 1998 through 8 October 1998, contrary to the dates recommended in the advisory opinion.

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

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was in an official TDY status between 20 August 1998 and 8 October 1998.

BOARD VOTE:  

__jhk___  ___wah__  __mkp___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999032739	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20001128	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	Grant	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.