IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 July 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002463 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x____ ___x____ ___x_____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 July 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002463 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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 July 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002463 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 correction of his military orders that were issued each year from 2007-2010 using an incorrect orders format and reflecting the wrong duty status. 2. The applicant states he was serving in a full time support status with the Ohio Army National Guard (OHARNG) from 2007-2010. He contends that OHARNG orders 264-315, 274-096, and 272-181 contain the incorrect duty type code, orders format and funding source. The orders reflect his being ordered to annual training (AT) for a 1-year period. Because the period was over 30 days, the AT duty type and funding source cannot be used. The duty type and funding source used should have been for full-time National Guard duty (FTNGD) for special work (SW). Additionally, the memorandum from Headquarters, Department of the Army, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, dated 21 February 2008, directed that active duty for special work (ADSW) and FTNGDSW orders would no longer be issued. The appropriate Army Reserve or ARNG orders issuing authorities would amend all ADSW or FTNGDSW orders issued on or after 28 October 2004 to identify the duty category as either Active Duty for Operational Support (OS) – Reserve Component (ADOS-RC) or as FTNGD-OS, as appropriate. 3. The applicant provides: * Orders 229-048, State of Ohio, dated 17 August 2007 * Orders 264-315, State of Ohio, dated 21 September 2007 * memorandum for Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, G-3, subject: Policy for Management of RC Soldiers on ADOS and FTNGD for OS, dated 21 February 2008 * Orders 274-096, State of Ohio, dated 30 September 2008 * Orders 272-181, State of Ohio, dated 29 September 2009 * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) (Service Copy 7) CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. Orders 229-048, State of Ohio, dated 17 August 2007, as provided by the applicant, ordered him to ADSW from 20 August to 30 September 2007 in support of pre-mobilization. He was to report to duty in Columbus, Ohio. The orders cited Title 32, U.S. Code, section 502(f) (32 USC 502(f)), and paragraph 2-2c, National Guard Regulation 601-1 (Army National Guard Strength MaintenanceProgram), as authority. 3. Orders 264-315, State of Ohio, dated 21 September 2007, as provided by the applicant, ordered him to AT as a projects officer from 1 October 2007 to 30 September 2008. He was to report to duty at the Beightler Armory, Columbus, Ohio. The orders cited 32 USC 502(f) and paragraph 2-2c, National Guard Regulation 601-1, as authority. 4. Orders 274-096, State of Ohio, dated 30 September 2008, as provided by the applicant, ordered him to AT as a project officer from 1 October 2008 to 30 September 2009. He was to report to duty at the Beightler Armory, Columbus, Ohio. The orders cited Title 32, U.S. Code 502(f) and paragraph 2-2c, National Guard Regulation 601-1, as authority. 5. Orders 272-181, State of Ohio, dated 29 September 2009, as provided by the applicant, ordered him to AT as a project officer from 1 October 2009 to 30 September 2010. He was to report to duty at the Beightler Armory, Columbus, Ohio. The orders cited Title 32, U.S. Code 502(f) and paragraph 2-2c, National Guard Regulation 601-1, as authority. 6. A DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) reports the applicant was ordered to active duty as a project officer for the period 20 August 2007 to 30 September 2010, as a member of the OHARNG assigned to the 135th Military Police Company in Columbus, Ohio. 7. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the National Guard Bureau (NGB). It recommended disapproval of the applicant’s request based on the following discussion: a. The applicant references Department of the Army Memorandum, subject: Policy for Management of Reserve Component Soldiers on ADOS, dated 21 February 2008, to support his claim. This memorandum applies to service members on ADOS or FTNGD tours. The applicant was not serving on ADOS orders, but rather was on AT orders which are training orders and therefore the referenced memorandum does not apply to him. b. In accordance with Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 1215.06, AT falls under active duty training (ADT) and states that support to mission requirements (i.e., OS) may occur incidental to performing ADT. Included in the ADT category are initial ADT, AT, and other training duty. Therefore, there is no conflict between duty type and duty performed. c. Upon coordination with the OHARNG, it was determined that all three of the orders the applicant references were funded by the State under Title 32, U.S. Code. DODI 1215.06 does not limit duration of AT orders that are Title 32 funded. From a funding standpoint, the orders are correct for the duration. DODI 1215.06 does limit Title 10 AT to 30 days in the current edition; however this change took effect 11 March 2014, which is after the issuance of the three orders in question. d. The OHARNG concurred with this recommendation. 8. On 23 May 2016, a copy of the advisory opinion was sent to the applicant for his information and opportunity to respond. The Board did not receive a response. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends that the military orders issued to him each year from 2007-2010 used an incorrect orders format and reflect the wrong duty status. He argues that he served in a full time support status with the OHARNG during the period in question. He bases his argument on the premise that AT duty type and funding source cannot be used for more than a 30-day period. Therefore, he believes that the duty type and funding source should have been for FTNGD for SW. 2. The NGB, in coordination with the OHARNG, reviewed the applicant’s orders and his contention. The available evidence shows that the applicant’s argument is only valid if he had been ordered to active duty under Title 10, U.S. Code, which is limited to a 30-day period by DODI 1215.06. However, he performed active service under Title 32, U.S. Code which is paid for by the State and has no such time limitation. 3. There is no evidence of error or injustice in this case. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160002463 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160002463 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2