IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	  6 September 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110024253 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests:

	a.  issuance of individual mobilization orders under the authority of Title 10, U.S. Code, section 12302, by the Department of the Army (DA) for his active duty tour in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) as Deputy Director of Operations, Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I) from 16 January 2006 through 1 August 2006;

	b.  issuance of individual temporary change of station (TCS) orders by DA for his deployment to MNF-I per the properly-issued individual mobilization orders; and

	c.  issuance of a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) by DA to reflect his service in support of OIF under Title 10, U.S. Code, section 12302, for the period 16 January 2006 through 1 August 2006.

2.  The applicant states he deployed in support of a contingency operation, OIF, and was not properly mobilized under Title 10, U.S. Code, section 12302, but instead performed his service under Title 32, U.S. Code, as an Army National Guard (ARNG) Active Guard Reserve (AGR) officer in violation of the Purpose Statute, Title 31, U.S. Code, section 1301(a), and this could result in being unjustly denied proper veterans' status and future benefits as he was never issued a DD Form 214.

3.  The applicant provides 18 exhibits identified at Tab C in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is currently serving as a brigadier general in the Minnesota ARNG.

2.  On 30 June 2004, State of Minnesota, Department of Military Affairs, Office of the Adjutant General, Orders 182-802, ordered the applicant to full-time National Guard duty in an AGR status for a period of 3 years from 1 July 2004 through 30 June 2007 under the authority of Title 32, U.S. Code, section 502f.

3.  While serving in an ARNG AGR status under Title 32, National Guard Bureau (NGB) Orders 12-041, dated 22 December 2005, ordered the applicant's deployment on a TCS for a period of 198 days between 16 January and 1 August 2006 and return to his permanent station upon completion of the duties in support of OIF/Operation Enduring Freedom as the Assistant Director of Operations, MNF-I.

4.  The change-of-duty officer evaluation report the applicant received for the period 22 May through 31 July 2006 shows he served as the Deputy Director of Operations, Iraq Reconstruction Management Office, U.S. Embassy, Iraq, during this period.

5.  A review of mobilization requirements completed by the DA G-3/5/7, in concert with the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs Mobilization and Operations Policy Branch and the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (AHRC) Mobilization Operations Division, found no mobilization requirement under Title 10 for the position during the time frame in question.

6.  Under the Army policy outlined in DA Personnel Policy Guidance, AHRC retains the authority to mobilize and publish orders for Reserve Component (RC) Soldiers deployed under Title 10, U.S. Code.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request to be issued DA mobilization orders and a DD Form 214 for the period in question has been carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.

2.  Army policy requires DA to identify mobilization requirements and publish orders for RC personnel deployed under Title 10.  Absent a DA requirement or directive, it appears that the applicant was deployed in a TCS status and assigned to the position in question by NGB while serving in a Title 32 ARNG AGR status.

3.  Absent any evidence indicating the applicant's deployment was the result of a DA requirement for the position during the time frame in question, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief.

4.  As a matter of information, there appears to be sufficient records or documents confirming the applicant's deployment during the time frame in question other than the DD Form 214 which would satisfy any need for verification of the service with the Department of Veterans Affairs or other interested agencies.  Although equity relief might be appropriate if there were evidence to show the applicant suffered an injustice as a result of the documentation, absent evidence that he has been denied any veterans' benefits due as a result of the service in question, there is also an insufficient evidentiary basis to support equity relief in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____X___  ____X___  ____X___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.



      __________   X   ______________
                 CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110024253



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110024253



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1