| Ms. | Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. | Calvin M. Fowler | Member | |
| Ms. | Karen L. Wolff | Member |
| Mr. | Karl F. Schneider | Acting Director | |
| Ms. | Deyon D. Battle | Analyst |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he be paid for 14 days of leave erroneously taken from him while he was on active duty.
APPLICANT STATES: He states that he has gone through every available procedure to remedy the mistake, however the government still owes him for 14 days of leave. He further states that he was told by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service that he would only be given back 5.5 days of leave because he had already sold back 54.5 days and an individual could only sell back 60 days during a career.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 19 June 1990, while serving as an Medium Helicopter Repairman in Panama, in the pay grade of E-5, the applicant submitted a request for 15 days of ordinary leave from 1 July through 15 July 1990. A review of the applicant’s records show that he only took leave from 12 July through 14 July 1990 and should have only been charged for 2 days of leave since 14 July 1990 was a non-duty day.
On 15 July 1994 the applicant was notified that he was being considered for punishment under Article 15 for an incident which occurred on 20 June 1994. He was charged with being disrespectful to his superior commissioned officer by saying to her that she would never make major if he had anything to do about it. He further stated that she was the reason soldiers in the company kill themselves (or words to that effect) and he refused to stop talking after being ordered to “at ease”. He was also being considered for punishment under Article 15 for intending to deceive his commander by making a false official statement. As a result of his actions, he was relieved from his duties. The applicant exercised his right to demand trial by court-martial.
On 26 July 1994 charges against the applicant were referred to a special court-martial empowered to adjudge a bad conduct discharge.
On 26 August 1994, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request to be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 in lieu of trial by court-martial.
The request for discharge was approved by the appropriate authority on 30 August 1994. Accordingly, he was discharged on 25 October 1994, under honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 in lieu of trial by court martial. He had completed 8 years and 9 days of total active service and he was issued an General Discharge Certificate.
Army Regulation 630-5 serves as the authority for leaves and passes. It states, in pertinent part, that Congress has provided compensation (no more than 60 days in a military career) for soldiers who were not able to use their leave because of military requirements prevented it. Soldiers will not be required to use leave immediately prior to separation simply for the purpose of reducing leave balances. On the other hand, use of the leave system as an extra money program defeats the intent of Congress to provide for health and welfare of soldiers. It should not be used either as a method of compensation or as a career continuation incentive. It is specifically intended that large leave balances will not be accrued expressly for settlement upon release from active duty.
The Department of Defense (DOD) Military Pay and Allowances Entitlement Manual provides statutory provisions for entitlements, deductions, and collection, and establishes DOD policy on their pay and allowances of military personnel. It states, in pertinent part, that service members shall forfeit all accrued leave at the time of discharge if the basis for their separation is in lieu of trial by court-martial.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. In as much as the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial and in accordance with the DOD Military Pay and Allowances Entitlements Manual, he was not entitled to be paid for accrued leave.
2. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to presume that what the Army did in his case was in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations in effect at the time.
3. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.
BOARD VOTE:
GRANT
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
JHL CMF KW DENY APPLICATION
Karl F. Schneider
Acting Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9706468C070209
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: On 19 June 1990, while serving as an Medium Helicopter Repairman in Panama, in the pay grade of E-5, the applicant submitted a request for 15 days of ordinary leave from 1 July through 15 July 1990. It states, in pertinent part, that Congress has provided compensation (no more than 60 days in a military career) for soldiers who were not able to use their leave because of military requirements prevented it. It states, in pertinent...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710956
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that at the time of his discharge he did not fully understand the degree of the charges. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges are preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710372
Ms.Karen J. NewsomeChairpersonMr.Raymond V. O’Connor Jr.MemberMs.Margaret K. PattersonMember Also present, without vote, were:Mr.Karl F. SchneiderActing DirectorMr.Joseph A. AdrianceAnalyst The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.The Board considered the following evidence: Chapter 10 of that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710966
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that at the time of his discharge he did not fully understand the degree of the charges. The evidence of record indicates that on 23 September 1975 a DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) was prepared preferring a court-martial charge against the applicant for two specifications of violation of Article 86 (AWOL). Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606472C070209
APPLICANT STATES: That, at the end of the fiscal year he had 83 days of leave; he started terminal leave of 60 days on 1 October 1994 with the intent of cashing in the remaining 23 days; and, when he received his final pay, he found out that he could not carry more than 60 days into the new fiscal year. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: On 19 January 1970, he was inducted into the Army of the United States and served honorably until his separation on 22 September...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707418
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges are preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant was charged with the commission of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9705757
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.The Board considered the following evidence: On 25 January 1972 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade to his discharge and found that the discharge process was proper in all respects. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711741
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges are preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court martial. The Board found no evidence of record or independent evidence submitted by the applicant which supported his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9510219C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he be reimbursed for 52 days of accrued leave that he lost at the time he was placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL). PURPOSE: To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. That regulation also states that Congress has provided compensation (no more than 60 days in a military career) for soldiers who were not able...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707477
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges are preferred, submit a request for discharge for the...