| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock | Analyst |
| Ms. Shirley L. Powell | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas A. Pagan | Member |
2. In effect, the applicant requests that he be reimbursed for 27 days of leave that he lost on 1 October 2002.
3. The applicant states that the MILPER message 02-088 [concerning accumulated leave in excess of 60 days] was misinterpreted. He submitted a leave form based on the MILPER message allowing additional days of leave to be carried forward into the next fiscal year. He submitted a request for 87 days of terminal leave on 26 July 2002 in connection with his pending retirement. He was assured that the time requested was authorized. On 9 October 2002 he was informed that he lost 27 days of leave.
4. The applicant’s military records show that on 26 July 2002 he submitted a request for leave for the period 10 October 2002 to 31 January 2003. This request included a combination of permissive TDY (temporary duty) and ordinary leave. His request was approved by his commanding officer.
5. On 20 November 2002 the Chief of Retirement Applications at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, informed the applicant that he had discussed the contents of the message with 101st Airborne Division finance personnel, and all agreed that if he had over 60 days leave as of 30 September 2001, he would not lose the excess.
6. Orders published on 22 March 2002 show that the applicant was released from active duty and retired on 31 January 2003.
7. MILPER Message Number 02-088 only changed a portion of a previous message regarding special leave accrual as a result of the 11 September 2001 attacks on the United States, and stated in effect that soldiers must use accumulated leave in excess of 60 days before the end of the third fiscal year after the service terminated (30 September 2004).
8. In the processing of this application, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Total Army Personnel Command Personnel Services Branch. That office stated that the loss of 27 days of leave was due to no fault of the applicant. He was provided erroneous information regarding the authorization to carry forward leave in excess of 60 days, resulting in his inability to reduce his leave balance prior to the end of the fiscal year. That office recommended that the applicant's request for reinstatement of his leave be approved. A copy of the opinion was furnished the applicant. He concurred with the opinion.
9. Information obtained from an official of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service in Indianapolis on 27 August 2003 revealed that the applicant did lose 27 days of leave on 1 October 2002. That official also stated that the applicant had never been paid for accrued leave.
10. Army Regulation 600-8-10 provides the leave policy for soldiers and states that accrued leave that exceeds 60 days at the end of the fiscal year will be lost except for special leave accrual to provide relief to soldiers who are not allowed leave when undergoing lengthy deployment or during periods of hostility.
11. Special leave accrual did not apply to the applicant's situation; else he would not have lost 27 days of leave on 1 October 2002.
12. Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation 7000.14-R states in pertinent part that a military member is entitled to receive payment for no more than 60 days of accrued leave during a military career.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The above mentioned MILPER message regarding special leave accrual did not apply to the applicant; however, he was apparently informed otherwise as indicated by the 20 November 2002 memorandum to him from the Chief, Retirement Applications at Fort Campbell, and as confirmed by the advisory opinion. He reasonably relied upon the erroneous advice and the reliance was to his detriment. It would be in the interest of justice to afford relief. The applicant lost 27 days of leave through no fault of his own.
2. Consequently, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant's records to show that he was eligible for special leave accrual, and to pay the applicant for the 27 days of leave that he lost.
3. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the applicant's records be corrected to show that he was eligible for special leave accrual, and that he be reimbursed for the 27 days of leave that he lost on 1 October 2002.
BOARD VOTE:
__SLP __ __WTM__ __TAP __ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
___ Shirley L. Powell_______
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2003084126 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030909 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 123.08 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080000458
Military Personnel (MILPER) Message 04-298, dated 28 October 2004, and effective 1 October 2004, implemented new SLA guidance for Soldiers serving in HFP/IDP by allowing Soldiers to accumulate up to 120 days of SLA and that any leave in excess of 60 days accumulated under this provision is lost if not used by the end of the third fiscal year (FY). The evidence of record shows that at that time, Soldiers were authorized to retain a 60-day leave balance year to year. The evidence of record...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080013908
MO stating that, since the lost leave did not accrue as a result of mobilization or deployment, the applicant's request was denied. Also, Soldiers who maintain a 60-day leave balance, and wait until late in the fiscal year to take leave, will be informed that they risk loss of leave over 60 days if the operational situation requires their presence; c. Paragraph 3-1 states that the intent of special leave accrual is to provide relief to Soldiers who are not allowed leave when undergoing...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012343
Title 10, U.S. Code, section 701(f), states SLA may be granted to Soldiers who serve on active duty for a continuous period of at least 120 days, in an area in which they are entitled to special pay for duty subject to hostile fire or imminent danger, and to those Soldiers who are not authorized annual leave as a consequence of duty assignments in support of contingency operations. The evidence of record shows the applicant was a LTC in the RA and as such, he was authorized to complete 28...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002083657C070215
His leave and earning statement for the period 1-31 October 2002 shows that he lost 30 days of leave, as he has stated. On 4 November 2002 the applicant's commanding officer requested that special leave accrual be approved for the applicant as well as reimbursement of the 30 days' leave that he lost. That command recommended that the applicant's request be disapproved, stating that he had failed to provide documentation to confirm his status during the physical evaluation period, and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087461C070212
The applicant provides NGB Orders 260-1 dated 17 September 2002; a 3 February 2003 memorandum from the Chief of Staff, NGB to the applicant, subject: Request for Special Leave Accrual; an undated memorandum from the applicant to NGB, subject: Request for Amendment of Separation Orders to Allow Use of Leave (applicant and his social security number); a 24 January 2003 memorandum from the U. S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) to the applicant, subject: Request for Special Leave Accrual;...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016942
The Defense Finance and Accounting Service submitted a response to a congressional inquiry on 4 August 2008 and stated the applicant: * separated with 34.5 days of accrued lump sum leave * accumulated 90 days of leave on 30 September 2007 (end of fiscal year) * wasnt entitled to special leave accrual * was only authorized to carry forward no more than 60 days of leave * lost 30 days of accrued leave on 1 October 2007 7. The evidence of record does not show the applicant has been unjustly...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071650C070402
The applicant requests that his record be corrected to reinstate 6.5 days leave that he lost in 2001, and that he be paid for that leave. On 28 August 2002 the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) in Indianapolis substantiated the applicant’s contentions that he was paid for 52.5 days leave in October 2001, and that he lost 6.5 days of leave. He was paid for 52.5 days leave upon his retirement in October 2001, and lost 6.5 days of leave as he contends and as substantiated by DFAS.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090020301
The applicant requests that the 19 days of leave restored to him by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), which he subsequently lost again, be again restored to him. As a result, the ABCMR recommended that the applicant's records be corrected by adjusting his leave balance to show restoration of 19 days of leave lost at the end of fiscal year 2007 under the provisions of the special leave accrual authority. f. Paragraph 3-2c states the Soldiers assigned to a designated...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060008374C071029
Had the applicant known that he had lost 49 days of leave at the end of the fiscal year, he most likely would have adjusted his terminal leave dates to prevent going into an excess leave balance at his final retirement out-processing. Although the applicant was prevented from taking leave due to operational considerations, he was not authorized special leave accrual since he did not actually deploy. Since the applicant’s debt was incurred while he was still serving on active duty (excess...