DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2000-048 
 
  
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
This  proceeding  was  conducted  according  to  the  provisions  of  section 
1552 of title 10 and section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  The BCMR 
docketed this case on January 11, 2000, upon receipt of the applicant’s completed 
application. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated September 21, 2000, is signed by the three duly 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 
 
The  applicant,  a  xxxxxxxxx,  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  record  by 
changing an extension of enlistment contract he signed on August 24, 1999, to a 
reenlistment contract.  The correction would entitle him to payment for leave he 
intended to sell but instead lost on that date. 
 

  

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  in  the  summer  of  1999,  he  needed  either  to 
reenlist or to extend his enlistment for a third time because it was due to end on 
September 23, 1999.  He alleged that in July his unit’s yeoman (personnel special-
ist) told him that he could extend his enlistment and sell up to 30 of his 89 days 
of leave.  Therefore, on July 21, 1999, he submitted a Career Intentions Worksheet 
indicating his intention to extend his enlistment for two years and sell 27.5 days 
of leave.  He submitted a copy of this worksheet, which was signed as approved 
by his command on August 12, 1999.  Therefore, on August 24, 1999, he signed 
the extension contract. 

 

The  applicant  alleged  that  after  his  new  extension  went  into  effect  in 
September 1999, the payment for his leave did not arrive.  When he inquired into 
his leave payment on October 4, 1999, he was told that he had lost both the leave 
and the payment because only members who reenlist, rather than extend, may 
sell leave. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On July 28, 2000, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard submitted an advi-
 

 
 
sory opinion in which he recommended that the Board grant relief in this case. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel stated that the record supports the applicant’s allega-
tion  that  he  was  misadvised  by  his  command  that  he  could  sell  leave  upon 
extending his enlistment.  He stated that under Article 7.A.20.a. of the Personnel 
Manual, members may only sell leave when they reenlist.  Therefore, the appli-
cant  was  not  paid  for  the  leave  he  intended  to  sell  and  lost  25  days  of  annual 
leave. 
 

The  Chief  Counsel  recommended  that  the  Board  void  the  applicant’s 
extension  contract  and  “allow  Applicant  to  enter  into  a  reenlistment  contract 
effective August 24, 1999.”  This correction, he alleged, would effectively recredit 
the applicant with 25 days of leave he lost in the transaction and permit him to 
sell 27.5 days of leave, as he originally intended.  

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On July 31, 2000, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the views of the 
Coast Guard and invited him to respond within 15 days.  On August 18, 2000, 
the applicant responded, stating that he was “in total agreement” with the Coast 
Guard.  
 

SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS 

 
On August 18, 2000, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard sent an e-mail 
message  to  the  BCMR  amending  his  recommendation.    He  recommended  that 
the  applicant  be  reenlisted  for  three  years  in  accordance  with  the  minimum 
required  under  regulations.    On  August  21,  2000,  the  Chairman  wrote  to  the 
applicant,  advising  him  that  the  Chief  Counsel  had  amended  his  advisory 
opinion.  The Chairman asked the applicant whether he agreed to being reenlist-
ed for three years as of September 24, 1999.  On September 7, 2000, the applicant 
responded, stating that he agreed with the proposed relief. 

 

 

APPLICABLE LAWS 

Article 1.G.2.a. of the Personnel Manual states that members may reenlist 

 
 
“for periods of three, four, five, or six years.” 
 
 
Article 1.G.14.a. states that, upon their request, members may extend their 
enlistments for “any number of full years not less than two nor greater than six.” 
 
 
Article  7.A.20.a.  states  that  “[e]ach  member  on  active  duty,  except  those 
listed in paragraph b. below, is entitled to a lump sum leave payment for unused 
earned leave accrued to his or her credit on date of discharge, separation from 
active duty, or the date preceding the effective date of first extension of enlist-
ment regardless of duration, to a maximum career total of 60 days.” 
 
 
Article  7.A.20.b.1.  states  that  “[m]embers  of  the  Regular  Coast  Guard  or 
Coast Guard Reserve discharged before their enlistment expires for the purpose 
of enlisting, reenlisting, or accepting an appointment in any Uniformed Service, 
if continued on active duty” are “not entitled to lump sum payments for unused 
earned leave on date of discharge, release to active duty, or extension of enlist-
ment.” 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 
3. 

 
The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of 
 
the applicant's military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submissions, 
and applicable law: 
 

1. 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to sec-

tion 1552 of title 10 of the United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 

2. 

The  applicant  presented  substantial  evidence  proving  that  the 
Coast Guard erred by advising him that he could sell 27.5 days of annual leave 
upon  extending  his  enlistment  on  August  24,  1999.    However,  under  Article 
7.A.20.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  he  was  not  entitled  to  sell  leave  because  the 
extension  he  signed  on  August  24,  1999,  was  the  third  extension  of  his  enlist-
ment.  The Coast Guard’s error has caused the applicant to lose 25 days of leave, 
for which he has not been paid.  

Under  Article  7.A.20.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  members  who 
extend  their  enlistments  for  a  second  or  third  time  and  members  who  are  dis-
charged  before  their  enlistments  expire  for  the  purpose  of  reenlisting  are  not 
entitled to sell unused earned leave.  Therefore, had the applicant been properly 
advised,  he  would  not  have  extended  his  enlistment  or  reenlisted  before  the 

expiration  of  his  enlistment  but  would  have  reenlisted  for  three  years  on 
September 24, 1999, upon the termination of his enlistment.   
 

4. 

Accordingly, relief should be granted by correcting the applicant’s 

record to show that he reenlisted for three years on September 24, 1999.  
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

 
 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
Terence W. Carlson 

The application of XXXXXXXX, USCG, for correction of his military record 
is hereby granted.  His record shall be corrected to show that he was discharged 
on September 23, 1999, and reenlisted on September 24, 1999, for three years.  His 
two-year extension contract dated August 24, 1999, shall be null and void.  The 
applicant  shall  be  recredited  with  the  leave  he  lost  due  to  the  Coast  Guard’s 
error,  and  he  shall  be  permitted  to  sell  the  leave  he  could  have  sold  upon  his 
discharge and reenlistment in September 1999.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Sharon Y. Vaughn 

 

 
L. L. Sutter