RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 21 October 2004
DOCKET NUMBER: AR2004102112
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.
| |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | |Director |
| |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | |Analyst |
The following members, a quorum, were present:
| |Mr. James E. Anderholm | |Chairperson |
| |Ms. Deborah Jacobs | |Member |
| |Mr. Ronald J. Weaver | |Member |
The Board considered the following evidence:
Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.
Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests, in effect, that Item 16 (Days Accrued Leave
Paid) of his separation document (DD Form 214) be corrected to reflect 31.5
days.
2. The applicant states, in effect, the item of his DD Form 214 should be
corrected because his leave and earnings statement (LES) reflects this
leave information.
3. The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 and a copy of an
extract of an LES online inquiry document in support of his application.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant’s record shows he served on active duty in the Regular
Army from 2 February 1999 through 1 April 2002. The DD Form 214 he was
issued confirms he was separated under the provisions of chapter 4, Army
Regulation 635-200, by reason of completion of required service after
completing a total of
3 years and 2 months of active military service.
2. Item 16 of the DD Form 214 he was issued on the date of his separation,
1 April 2002, contains the entry “None”.
3. The applicant provides a copy of an LES that indicates a pay date of
2 February 1999, that shows he had been paid for 31.5 days of leave as of
that date.
4. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Cleveland Center, has a
document titled “Understanding Your LES” posted on its home page. This
document confirms that the Field 31 (LV-PD) portion of the LES reflects the
number of days of leave paid to date.
5. 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 also
establishes standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form
214. Chapter 2 contains item-by-item instructions for the DD Form 214. It
states, in pertinent part, that the number of days of accrued leave being
paid to the soldier or the word "NONE" will be entered as provided by the
local finance office.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant’s claim that Item 16 of his DD Form 214 should be
corrected to show 31.5 days of leave paid was carefully considered.
However, insufficient evidence was found to support this claim.
2. The evidence provided by the applicant only shows that he had been paid
for 31.5 days of leave as of the date of the LES he provided, which appears
to be
2 February 1999. There is no indication that the applicant had or was paid
for any accrued leave during his processing for his 1 April 2002
separation. Further, there is no evidence that the applicant suffered any
injustice based on the existing entry in Item 16 of his DD Form 214. As a
result, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the
requested relief.
3. 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.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__JEA __ __DJ____ __RJW___ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.
______________________
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
|CASE ID |AR2004102112 |
|SUFFIX | |
|RECON | |
|DATE BOARDED |2004/10/ |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE |HD |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE |2002/04/01 |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY |AR 635-200 |
|DISCHARGE REASON |ETS |
|BOARD DECISION |DENY |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
|ISSUES 1. |128.0000 |
|2. | |
|3. | |
|4. | |
|5. | |
|6. | |
-----------------------
[pic]
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012023
The NGB official further indicates that the applicant was authorized leave during the period 24 through 28 October 2005. Therefore, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant's record by showing the applicant had sufficient accrued leave to take ordinary leave during the period 24 through 28 October 2005, that no debt was incurred by the applicant for non-performance of duty during this period, and to reimburse the applicant any amount of this erroneous debt already collected. ...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2008-187
Finally, the applicant stated, he was advised that he could sell 40.5 days of leave and also have 20 days of administrative absence,4 which he requested in an email to the YN2 on July 19, 2007. • Later that evening, a YN1 at the ISC sent an email to both the YN2 and the applicant stat- ing that he had misinterpreted the Personnel Manual and that administrative leave could be taken in increments.5 • On the morning of July 19, 2007, the applicant sent the YN2 an email saying that “[t]he new...
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 | 20040009606C070208
In the original Proceedings in this case – ABCMR Docket Number AR2000048106, dated 15 March 2001 – the Board sought to pay the applicant, at the time of his disability retirement, 94.5 days of accrued leave in excess of the 60 days permitted by law and regulation and already paid to him. Because the Board's action returned him to active duty, the DVA could not pay him disability compensation and a collection action was initiated in the amount of $16,395.00. Void the recommendation of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080002152
Block 16 (Days Accrued Leave) on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows zero amount of leave paid. There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant was paid 60 days accrued leave during her military career. Since there is no evidence of record which indicates the applicant was paid for the maximum amount of 60 days during her military career, it would be appropriate to pay her for 25.0 days of accrued leave and to amend her DD Form 214 for the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040007420C070208
The applicant requests (with his original application), in effect, that his 16 April 1990 discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635- 200, chapter 10 be changed to a discharge for erroneous enlistment and that all documents related to the chapter 10 discharge be expunged from his records; that he be paid for 19.5 days of accrued leave; that he be paid basic pay for the period 1 through 15 November 1988; that "something" be done about the DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or...
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 | CY2006 | 20060002906C070205
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his 20 December 2003 separation document (DD Form 214). As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by amending his 20 December 2003 DD Form 214 by deleting the current entry in Item 11 and replacing it with the entries "11H10 - Heavy Anti-Armor Weapons Infantryman - 2 years and 9 months" and "11B10 - Infantryman - 1 year and 3 months"; by adding the Global War on...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150003414
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 September 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150003414 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states, when he left the Army he had accrued a total of 76 days of leave. His LES for the period 1-31 July 2014, which shows he had a leave balance of 76 days and had been previously paid for 60 days of accrued leave.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089557C070403
The Board considered the following evidence: His DD Form 214 with an ending date of 16 August 2002 shows he was paid 10.0 days of accrued leave. The evidence of record shows the applicant was paid 50.0 days of accrued during his service in the U.S. Navy.