| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Rosa Chandler | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | |
| Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that Item 12c (Net Active Service This Period) on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected to show the 60 days of accrued leave that he lost.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he received separation orders on 5 May 2001 with an effective separation date of 1 June 2001. He had previously cashed in 60 days of accrued leave in 1992, so he was unable to do so again. The speed at which the separation process moved precluded him from using his 60 days of accrued leave; thus he was forced to lose it. He contends that staff personnel at the Transition Point informed him that there was nothing he could do about the leave that he lost. He submits in support of his request a copy of his DD Form 214, his Leave and Earnings Statement (LES) for the pay period 1-31 April 2001, Orders Number C-05-701006 and Orders Number C-05-701007. Both copies of the orders are dated 2 May 2001 and both are from the Department of the Army, US Army Reserve Personnel Command, St. Louis, Missouri.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was a sergeant first class (SFC/E-7) in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) serving on active duty from 22 October 1989 - 1 June 2001. He was separated with an honorable discharge on 1 June 2001 under the provisions of chapter 6, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 by reason of hardship.
That prior to the period of enlistment under review, he had completed 4 years,
9 months and 14 days of honorable active military service in the Regular Army (RA) and he had also completed 17 years, 6 months and 23 days of prior inactive service.
The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that he reenlisted in the US Army Reserve (USAR) on 22 October 1989 and he served until he was honorably separated and transferred to the USAR Control Group, St. Louis on 1 June 2001 under the provisions of chapter 6, Army Regulation 635-200, due to hardship. There is no further information contained in the applicant's file concerning the reason for discharge.
The applicant's LES for the period 1-30 April 2001 indicates that he had a leave balance of 77.5 days. It also shows that he had already been paid for 60 days of leave.
Army Regulation 600-8-10, Leaves and Passes, prescribes the policies and mandated operating tasks for the leave and pass function of the Military Personnel System. In essence, it provides two options for disposing of accrued leave upon separation. The first is to take the accrued leave in the form of transition leave, and the second is to receive payment of accrued leave. This option permits a soldier to cash leave up to a limit of 60 days one time during a military career. Any leave not disposed of in these two ways is forfeited.
Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, prescribes the separation documents that must be prepared for soldiers on retirement, discharge, release from active duty service, or control of the Active Army. It establishes standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214. There are no provisions for showing lost or forfeited leave on DD Form 214.
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 order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record
is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
2. The applicant was separated under the provisions of chapter 6, AR 635-200, for hardship. The regulation requires the soldier to make a request, in writing, for a hardship discharge. It is unfortunate that the applicant forfeited accrued leave upon his separation; however, it was he who initiated the request for separation and who had previously requested and received payment for 60 days of accrued leave. When his request for a hardship discharge was approved, he was without any options other than forfeiting his leave.
3. AR 635-5 does not permit crediting accrued leave on DD Form 214.
4. 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
___FNE _ ___BJE _ __KYF __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001058913 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011108 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | HD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 20010601 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A35.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (NC) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 121.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075556C070403
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: While it is unfortunate that the applicant may have lost some of his accrued leave at the time of his separation, he has failed to show through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record that he was unjustly denied the opportunity to take ordinary or terminal leave at some time prior to his separation date. The Board is not an investigative agency and while it reviews many cases in which soldiers make...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066574C070402
He also submits: a copy of DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) wherein he requests that his separation date be changed from 1 October 2001 to 20 October 2001 in order to accommodate his leave; a copy of Orders 242-0002, Headquarters, US Army Garrison, Fort George G. Meade (Maryland), dated 30 August 2001, showing that the applicant was assigned to the US Army Transition Center on 1 October 2001 for discharge from the Regular Army (RA). On an unknown date [the DA Form 31 is not dated by the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040001370C070208
Antonio Uribe | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The evidence shows that the applicant did plan to use 22 days of accrued leave between 10 May 2003 and 31 May 2003, but that his intention was thwarted because of his medical emergency. Nonetheless, the applicant, although apparently on convalescent leave for 10 days from 6 May 2003 to 15 May 2003, although not considered authorized accrued leave as such, was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070675C070402
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 military requirements prevented it. While it is unfortunate that the applicant may have lost some of his accrued leave at the time of his separation, he has failed to show through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record that he was unjustly denied the opportunity to take ordinary or terminal...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110021275
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, that he be paid for 114.5 days of accrued leave he lost at the time of retirement. The applicant was not authorized to be paid for his accrued leave at the time of his separation because he was not authorized to be paid for more than 60 days of leave in a career and he had already cashed in 60 days of leave during prior separations (although it appears he may have had additional special leave paid for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019140
The applicant requests a 20-year Regular Army retirement with maximum medical disability (100 percent) which would qualify her for concurrent retirement and disability pay. On 17 November 2011, the applicant was released from active duty and she was placed on the TDRL on the following day with a combined disability rating of 70 percent. He stated that she had 50 days of accrued leave as of 9 November 2011 and that during her career lifetime, she had cashed in 53 days of leave, thus leaving...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021108
The applicant states he: * lost 17.5 days of leave due to "Use/Lose" in FY 2010 * was assigned to the Warrior Transition Unit (WTU) on 19 May 2010 * was not afforded an opportunity to take leave prior to 1 October 2010 due to the number of appointments and the time between the appointments * requested permission to submit an exception to policy prior to his medical retirement on 27 May 2011, but his command denied it * is requesting an exception to policy as a Reservist who served on active...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071871C070403
Leave will not be granted if it exceeds that accrued or to be accrued between the date of approval and date of transition. The applicant had accrued 67.5 days of leave at the date of his release from active duty and used 90 days of leave as stated on his Statement of Military Leave Account, and incurred a debt of 24.5 days of excess leave. The Board notes the applicant's contention that he was unable to take leave because the mission was always first; however, there is no evidence in the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080141C070215
The applicant's LES for the period of 1 August through 27 August 2000 shows that the applicant was paid for .5 days of unused leave at the time of separation. His DD Form 214 indicates in block 16 that he was paid for 63.5 days of accrued leave. RECOMMENDATION : That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing on the DD Form 214 dated 27 August 2000, pertaining to the individual concerned, that he was paid for .5 days of leave instead of 63.5...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010385C070208
The evidence of record confirms special leave accrual provisions for all military members have been in effect, in some form, since fiscal year 2001. The evidence of record in this case confirms the applicant was authorized special leave accrual based on his deployments in support of the GWOT. The December 2003 LES he provides shows he was allowed to bring forward 90 days, as opposed to 60 days, of accrued leave at the end of fiscal year 2003, as was authorized by the special leave accrual...