DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2001-086 
 
  
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

This proceeding was conducted according to the provisions of section 1552 of 

 
ANDREWS, Deputy Chair: 
 
 
title 10 and section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  On May 22, 2001, the 
BCMR received and docketed the applicant’s request for correction. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated March 21, 2002, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 The applicant, a former lieutenant junior grade (LTJG; O-2) in the Coast Guard 

 
 
Reserve, asked the Board to order the Coast Guard to pay him for 6.5 days of accrued 
annual leave that he was unable to use or sell prior to his discharge because of an 
administrative error and erroneous counseling by the Coast Guard.  
 
The applicant alleged that on March 12, 2001—58 days before the end of his 
 
three-year active duty contract on May 7, 2001—he met with his Personnel Reporting 
Unit (PERSRU) and completed a Career Intentions Worksheet.  On the worksheet, he 
indicated that he wanted to sell 42.5 days of accrued annual leave.  The applicant alleged 
that the PERSRU examined his records and told him that he could sell the leave.  
Therefore, the applicant did not take terminal leave and continued to serve on duty. 
 
 
informed him that he would not be allowed to sell more than 22 days of leave.  He could 
not sell all 42.5 days of his accrued leave because the law does not permit a member to 
sell more than 60 days of leave, and the applicant had sold 38 days of leave when he left 
the Army at the end of a two-year stint in 1989. 
 

The applicant alleged that 14 days before the end of his contract, his PERSRU 

The applicant alleged that his command permitted him to go on terminal leave at 

 
that point, but he still went to work to finish necessary tasks and ease the transition for his 
relief.  He sold 22 days of leave, but was unable to sell or use 6.5 days of leave prior to 
his discharge.  The applicant alleged that if his PERSRU had properly evaluated his 
entitlement to sell leave or had timely processed the paperwork through the Coast Guard 
Personnel Command (CGPC), he would have been able to use those 6.5 days of leave to 
ease his transition to civilian life. 
 
 
Intentions Worksheet, dated March 12, 2001, which shows that he asked to sell 42.5 days 
of leave.  He also submitted a copy of his Army discharge form, DD 214, which shows 
that he sold 38 days of leave upon his separation in 1989. 
 

In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted a copy of his Career 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

The Chief Counsel argued that the law does not permit the Coast Guard to 

 
 
On September 14, 2001, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board grant alternative relief. 
 
 
reimburse the applicant for another 6.5 days of leave because he has already sold the 
maximum number of days of leave (60) permitted by law.  37 U.S.C. § 501; Personnel 
Manual, Article 7.A.1.  However, the Chief Counsel stated, Coast Guard regulations 
permitted the applicant’s command, when it discovered the PERSRU’s error, to extend 
the applicant’s contract for another 6 days, so that he would receive an extra 6 days of 
active duty pay and allowances.  He stated that the applicant’s command probably was 
unaware of this administrative solution to the problem.  He recommended that the Board 
correct the applicant’s record by changing the final day of his active duty contract from 
May 7, 2001, to May 13, 2001.  He stated that the 6 days’ extra pay and allowances the 
applicant would receive as a result of this correction are actually a bit more than what he 
would have received if he had been allowed to sell the 6.5 days of leave.   
 
 
The Chief Counsel attached to his advisory opinion a memorandum on the case 
prepared by CGPC, which confirmed the applicant’s allegations and also recommended 
that the Board grant the proposed alternative relief. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On September 18, 2001, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the views of the 

 
 
Coast Guard and invited him to respond within 15 days.  No response was received. 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
 
Under 37 U.S.C. 37(b), a member of the armed forces “who has accrued 
leave to his credit at the time of his discharge, is entitled to be paid in cash or by 
a check on the Treasurer of the United States for such leave on the basis of the 
basic pay to which he was entitled on the date of discharge. …   However, the 

number of days of leave for which payment is made may not exceed sixty, less 
the number of days for which payment was previously made under this section 
after February 9, 1976.” 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 
 
 
 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

The Board has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the provisions of 

The applicant asked to be paid for 6.5 days of leave.  However, this is not 

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: 
 
 
10 U.S.C. § 1552.  The application was timely. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel admitted that the Coast Guard erred in advising the 
applicant that he could sell 42.5 days of accrued annual leave when, under 37 U.S.C. 
§ 501, he was legally entitled to sell no more than 22 days of leave because he had 
previously sold 38 days of leave upon his separation from the Army. 
 
 
permissible under 37 U.S.C. § 501. 
 
The Chief Counsel indicated that upon discovery of the PERSRU’s error, 
 
the applicant’s command could have and should have extended his contract by another 6 
days.  He recommended that the Board grant relief by extending the applicant’s contract 
for 6 days. 
 
 
at issue in this case because he did not mention to his PERSRU that he had previously 
sold 38 days of leave upon his discharge from the Army.  However, the PERSRU also 
erred by not asking the applicant if he had previously sold leave, and the Coast Guard 
erred by not processing the applicant’s request to sell leave in a timely manner.  In light 
of these errors and the Chief Counsel’s recommendation, the Board finds that it would be 
in the interest of justice to extend the applicant’s contract by 6 days so that he will receive 
back pay and allowances. 
 
 
be granted.  
 
 
 

The applicant must bear some of the blame for the administrative mistake 

6. 

Accordingly, the alternative relief proposed by the Chief Counsel should 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
Michael K. Nolan 

 

 

 
Kathryn Sinniger 

 

 

 
Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The application of former                           , USCGR, for correction of his military 

record is granted as follows: 

 
The Coast Guard shall amend his Extended Active Duty contract and DD 214 to 
show that he was separated from the service on May 13, 2001, instead of May 7, 2001. 

 
The Coast Guard shall pay him any back pay and allowances he may be due as a 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

result of this correction.