IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  9 August 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120001470 


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 record to show he was on annual training (AT) or active duty for special work (ADSW) orders from 12 June 2011 to 21 June 2011 and reimbursement of travel expenses.

2.  The applicant states his chain of command directed him to perform rescheduled inactive duty training (IDT) and issued him a DD Form 1610 (Request and Authorization for Temporary Duty Travel of Department of Defense Personnel) for travel and per diem.  After successful completion of his IDT he filed his travel voucher but was denied reimbursement because he had been in an IDT status.  His chain of command provided written verification admitting they made an error which caused him to incur an unjust financial hardship.  He also has supporting documentation from the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) asking ADT orders be issued so he can be reimbursed for the financial hardship he incurred.

3.  The applicant provides:

* Leave and Earnings Statement (LES), dated 22 July 2011
* DD Form 1610, dated 9 June 2011
* DD Form 1351-2 (Travel Voucher or Subvoucher), dated 13-21 June 2011
* Routing Sheet, dated 15 July 2011
* 4 memoranda 
* Defense Travel System (DTS) history, dated 20 December 2011


CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  After having had prior enlisted service, the applicant reenlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) as a drilling individual mobilization augmentee (DIMA) for an indefinite period on 4 December 2007.  He holds military occupational specialty 46Z (Chief Public Affairs NCO).

2.  His record contains Orders Number C-10-015250, issued by HRC on 
25 October 2010.  These orders assigned him to the U.S. Army Office of the Chief Army Reserve (OCAR), Pentagon, Washington, D.C., effective 25 October 2010.

3.  He provided a copy of his LES, dated 22 July 2011, which shows he performed IDT on 9 - 10 June 2011 and 13 - 20 June 2011.

4.  He provided a DD Form 1610, dated 9 June 2011, which shows he requested TDY orders to perform a special mission for OCAR for a period of 9 days with a proceed date of 13 June 2011.  This form shows that he planned to fly from Omaha, NE, his home of residence, to Washington D.C.

5.  He provided an undated DD Form 1315-2 which shows he left Nebraska and arrived in Washington, D.C. on 13 June 2011 and then left Washington, D.C. and arrived in Nebraska on 21 June 2011.  This form also shows he indicated the total amount due/amount paid was $3,206.36.  The below table contains an itemized listing of the costs associated with the travel as listed on his DD Form 1610.

Costs NOT Included in Total
Amount
Costs Included in Total
Amount
Lodging Costs
$1,688.00 
Per Diem
$2,291.50 
Baggage Tip
$5.00 
Actual Expense Allowance
$186.04 
ATM Advance Fee
$3.00 
Mileage
$26.52 
Baggage Tip
$5.00 
Airline Ticket
$702.30 
Room Tax
$173.04 
 
 
Total Amount
$1,874.04 
Total Amount
$3,206.36 
6.  He provided a USAR Form 9, dated 15 July 2011, which states he was scheduled to perform 9 days of IDT at Fort McCoy, WI, in June 2011.  Shortly before the mission was to begin it was cancelled due to U.S. Army Forces Command (FORSCOM) sourcing changes.  To minimize the impact to him, he was directed to report to OCAR for those same 9 days to create a USAR crisis communications plan.  Due to an oversight, he could not have his travel, lodging, or per diem funded because Army regulations state IMA Soldiers are not authorized travel, lodging, or per diem while in an IDT status.  To correct this oversight and ensure he is reimbursed for the over $3000.00 of travel expenses, HRC agreed to fund him in an ADT status retroactively.  However, HRC will require a general officer memorandum requesting this exception to policy.

7.  He provided a general officer memorandum, dated 28 July 2011, requesting HRC grant an exception to policy by issuing orders to allow him to be paid retroactively.  The memorandum states that in May 2011 the applicant agreed to perform duty from 13 June 2011 to 21 June 2011 at Fort McCoy, WI, to assist USAR Communications by performing an observer/control mission for a public affairs unit scheduled for deployment.

	a.  He had already performed his AT; therefore, he was instructed to use 9 days of IDT for  pay and allowances.  His travel and per diem were to be paid with a DD Form 1610 and funded through a public affairs line of accounting.

	b.  Less than a week before the mission was scheduled to begin, and after the applicant had scheduled time off from work with his civilian employer, FORSCOM "off ramped" the unit scheduled to deploy, making his mission unnecessary.  To minimize the negative effects, he was asked to alter his duty location and report to USAR Communications at OCAR to develop a crisis communications plan for the USAR.  He agreed to the change and successfully completed the mission.

	c.  After completion of the mission an oversight in its execution was discovered.  IMA Soldiers in an IDT status cannot be reimbursed for travel, lodging, and per diem when at their normal duty location.  Therefore, he could not be reimbursed for his more than $3,000.00 of travel expenses.  The USAR Communications staff actively engaged with HRC and the OCAR IMA program manager to seek a solution to avoid any negative consequences.  This exception to policy request will allow HRC to retroactively fund the applicant in an ADT status and thereby allow him to be reimbursed for travel expenses through the existing DD Form 1610.

8.  He provided a memorandum for record, dated 21 November 2011, wherein he stated he has performed several IDTs away from his home of residence and official duty location.  On each of these occasions he was issued a DD Form 1610 and he was reimbursed for the associated travel costs and per diem.  In June 2011, he was scheduled to perform 9 days of IDT in Fort McCoy, WI; however, the scheduled mission was unexpectedly cancelled.   After the mission was cancelled his leadership asked him to change his duty location for IDT to OCAR in Washington, D.C. to work on a USAR crisis communications plan.  He was told his travel and per diem cost would be covered using a DD Form 1610 so he agreed to make the change.  After the completion of his IDT mission he filed his travel voucher and was later told it was denied because IMA Soldiers are not authorized reimbursement for travel, lodging or per diem while in an IDT status.

	a.  His IMA reserve coordinator informed him a new travel order, a policy waiver, or a change in duty status to AT would need to be submitted to authorize reimbursement.  A general officer in his chain of command signed an exception to policy memorandum requesting HRC issue him AT orders for the period he conducted his IDT to allow for the reimbursement of his travel expenses.

	b.  HRC informed his chain of command that backdating AT orders had been done in the past and remained doable; however, since the HRC merger, this was the first time such a request was being made.  HRC later informed his chain of command that the final approval was imminent but would have to come from the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (Army G-1).

	c.  On 10 November 2011 HRC informed his chain of command that nobody at HRC or the Army G-1 was able to process the request, and while no one had disapproved the request nobody seemed to know how or actually wanted to approve the exception to policy.

9.  His chain of command received a memorandum from HRC, dated 
22 December 2011.  The memorandum stated "the request for exception to policy asking HRC to backdate AT orders had been reviewed by HRC and the Army G-1.  After extensive research, in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-105 (Military Orders), and as confirmed by the Army G-1, HRC has no authority to backdate AT orders.  The request to backdate AT orders must be done through the submission of a DD Form 149 (Application for the Correction of Military Records) to the ABCMR.

10.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion, dated 9 January 2012, was received from an official at HRC.  The advisory official recommended approval of the applicant's request for ADT orders to allow for the reimbursement of his travel and per diem expenses.  The advisory opinion further stated:

	a.  The applicant performed IDT during the period of 13-21 June 2011 based on verbal orders from his commanding officer and without proper documentation.  It would be appropriate to publish an ADT order in lieu of an IDT order and DD Form 1610, dated 9 June 2011, by the OCAR for reimbursement of the travel and lodging expenses.

	b.  The applicant was assigned as a  DIMA to the OCAR in Washington, D.C.  In May 2011 he was verbally asked and agreed to perform 9 days of IDT at Fort McCoy, WI; however, the training mission was cancelled and he was asked to alter his duty location and report directly to OCAR in Washington, D.C. for those same 9 days to develop a crisis communications plan for the USAR in an IDT status.  His unit realized at the completion of his mission that he was not eligible for reimbursement for travel and lodging (approximately $3030.32) because the IDT was performed at his unit of assignment as governed by the Joint Federal Travel Regulation.

	c.  In accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-105, HRC has no authority to backdate ADT orders after the duty was performed or to alter the duty location.  It is strongly recommended that the ABCMR provide HRC with the approval to backdate ADT orders to allow the applicant to be reimbursed for his travel expenses.

11.  Army Regulation 140-145 (Individual Mobilization Augmentation (IMA) Program), paragraph 3-1 (Personnel Management and Administration) states IMA Soldiers are not authorized travel expenses or a per diem while performing periods of IDT.  Therefore, Soldiers interested in being considered for assignment to an IMA position must be willing to cover these costs at their own expense.  Ideally, Soldiers being considered for assignment to an IMA position should reside within reasonable commuting distance of the designated duty location, that is, within 50 miles, in order to ensure their availability for training.  However, this rule may be waived provided appropriate arrangements are made in advance between the Soldier and the proponent agency.  All such agreements must be appropriately documented in writing and retained by the proponent agency.  

12.  Army Regulation 135-200 (Active Duty for Missions, Projects, and Training for Reserve Component Soldiers), chapter 3 (Annual Training (AT) and Required Active Duty for Training (ADT)) states the AT of IMA Soldiers will be directed toward preparing Soldiers for their mobilization assignments.  Soldiers are required to participate in at least 12 days AT each year excluding travel time.  Subject to availability of funds, they may be ordered to AT for up to 19 days excluding travel time to participate in mobilization exercises.  Only one AT mobilization tour is authorized per fiscal year (FY).

13.  Army Regulation 135-200, chapter 4 (ADT) states the primary purpose and content of ADT is training.  Benefit to the organization conducting the training is incidental.  ADT will not be used to meet real or perceived manpower shortages to perform organizational missions or administration, or to augment the Active Army when a tour of ADSW may be more appropriate.

14.  Army Regulation 135–200, chapter 6 (ADSW), states ADSW is authorized for projects supporting ARNGUS and USAR programs such as support of annual screening, operation of training activities, centers, and sites, operation of training ships, unit conversion to new weapons systems, study groups, support at training sites and exercises, and short term mission and administrative support.  ADSW will not be used to meet real or perceived manpower shortages.  Normal full-time staff, command and control duties and responsibilities will not be included in these projects and missions.  It must be used for temporary projects or missions normally for not more than 139 days.  Tours are funded from ARNGUS or USAR personnel appropriations.

15.  Army Regulation 135–200, paragraph 6–2 (Proper use of ADSW tours) states ADSW is established to clearly distinguish between tours intended for the training of individual Soldiers (ADT) and tours intended to accomplish ARNGUS and USAR work projects or missions ADSW.  ADSW and ADT are not interchangeable.  Each has a disinct purpose and funding authorization.  ADSW is in order when the purpose of the tour is not to provide skill training but to accomplish one of the ARNGUS and USAR missions.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request that he be placed on either AT or ADSW from 12 June 2011 to 21 June 2011 enabling him to receive reimbursement for travel costs has been carefully considered and determined to have partial merit.  His DD Form 1610 shows he performed duty from 13 June 2011 to 21 June 2011; therefore, he would not be entitled to a 12 June 2011 start date for either AT or ADSW orders.

2.  IMA Soldiers are not authorized to receive travel expenses or per diem while performing IDT.

3.  He stated, since being assigned to his current unit, he had performed IDT at locations outside his 50 mile radius on several occasions and received reimbursement via a DD Form 1610 and travel voucher each time.  It is clear, he believed this was the correct process for completing IDTs outside the 50 mile radius of his home.

4.  However, it appears his unit should never have processed these past claims.  The fact they continually processed travel claims for IMA Soldiers on IDT indicates the unit did not properly understand the IMA program and/or the appropriate methods used to bring IMA Soldiers onboard to perform duty or training.  Therefore, his unit believing the issuance of a DD Form 1610 to be the correct and appropriate method unintentionally created errors within their own administrative processes.

5.  His unit admitted to making an inadvertent administrative error.  Additionally, his unit and HRC have worked diligently to find a solution allowing for the reimbursement of his travel expenses.  

6.  HRC recommended the issuance of backdated ADT orders to cover the period of his IDT to allow for the reimbursement of his travel expenses.  However, neither ADT or AT orders are appropriate in this case.

	a.  The primary purpose of ADT is to conduct training.  He was directed to conduct IDT to work on a USAR crisis communication plan, a nontraining related mission.

	b.  He had already completed 12 days of AT.  IMA Soldiers are only authorized one period of AT per year.

	c.  ADSW is authorized for projects supporting ARNGUS and USAR programs such as short term missions and administrative support.  Working on a USAR crisis communications plan can be categorized as both a short term mission and administrative support.  Therefore, ADSW is the most appropriate solution.

7.  Two things are clear, first, his unit created an administrative error which had a negative financial impact on him and second, he performed his duties in good faith believing he would be reimbursed for his travel expenses.  As such, it would be appropriate, as a matter of equity, to grant relief in this case by issuing backdated ADSW orders from 13 June 2011 to 21 June 2011, as listed on his DD Form 1610.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

___x____  ____x___  ____x___  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:
* showing ADSW orders for the period 13 June 2011 to 21 June 2011 were issued in a timely manner
* paying him in accordance with his ADSW orders the total amount of $3,206.36, as indicated on his DD Form 1610

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to issuing ADSW orders beginning on 12 June 2011.  



      _______ _   __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)                                         AR20120001470



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120001470



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1