DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2002-131 
 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
 
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 the applicant’s request for correction on July 5, 2002. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  March  13,  2003,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
 The applicant asked the Board to order the Coast Guard to pay him for 20 
days of annual leave.  He alleged that during his last six months in the service, he 
took  20  days  of  leave,  but  the  days  should  have  been  considered  as  days  of 
administrative absence.  He alleged that under Articles 7.A.10.a.4. and 12.C.1.f. of 
the Personnel Manual and paragraph 4.c. of COMDTINST 1900.2, he should have 
been counseled about the Transition Assistance Program (TAP), under which he 
could have taken an administrative absence in lieu of annual leave.  However, he 
alleged, he was not timely counseled about TAP and so took 20 days of annual 
leave  instead  of  requesting  an  administrative  absence.    As  a  result,  he  was  not 
able to sell those 20 days back to the government upon his retirement. 
 
 
The  applicant  submitted  a  sworn  statement  from  his  supervisor  stating 
that  “if  [the  applicant]  had  applied  for  the  20-day  period  of  administrative 
absence  authorized  under  PERSMAN  7.A.10.a.4.,  PERSMAN  12.C.1.f.,  and 
COMDTINST 1900.2, I know of no reason such a request would not have been 
granted as a matter of routine.” 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  November  26,  2002,  the  Chief  Counsel  of  the  Coast  Guard  recom-
mended that the Board grant relief.  The advisory opinion of the Chief Counsel, 
including  an  attached  memorandum  on  the  facts  of  the  case  prepared  by  the 
Coast Guard Personnel Command, is attached to this final decision below. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On December 2, 2002, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the views of 
the  Coast  Guard  and  invited  him  to  respond.    The  applicant  responded  on 
December 13, 2002, stating that he agreed with the recommendation. 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
 
Article 12.C.1.f. of the Personnel Manual provides that chief warrant offi-
cers  (CWOs)  may,  under  the  TAP  provisions  in  COMDTINST  1900.2  and  with 
their  commands’  permission,  take  up  to  20  “permissive  temporary  duty”  days 
“for activities related to transition or relocation” prior to retiring. 
 
 
Article  7.A.10.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  provides  that  commanding  offi-
cers  may  authorize  members  to  take  “administrative  absences”  for  a  variety  of 
purposes,  including  to  “[a]llow  retiring  and  involuntarily  separated  members 
time to participate in pre-separation job search and house hunting activities prior 
to separation.”  Art. 7.A.10.a.4. 
 
 
Commandant  Instruction  1900.2  contains  the  rules  for  the  TAP.    Para-
graph  5.a.  requires  that  every  member  receive  pre-separation  counseling  about 
TAP benefits approximately 180 days before separation and at least 90 days prior 
to separation.  Enclosure (4) to the instruction states that one of the TAP benefits 
is  pending  retirees  eligibility  to  take  up  to  10  days  of  “permissive  temporary 
duty,” which is often called “permissive TAD.” 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 
 
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: 
 
 
sions of 10 U.S.C. § 1552.  The application was timely. 
 
 
The Board agrees with the Chief Counsel that the preponderance of 
the evidence in the record indicates that the applicant was not timely counseled 

The Board has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the provi-

1. 

2. 

about his ability to take 20 days of permissive TAD prior to his retirement, in lieu 
of annual leave,  under Article 12.C.1.f. of the Personnel Manual.   Since he  was 
retired  on  June  30,  2002,  he  should  have  been  counseled  about  his  transition 
benefits  in  early  January  2002  and  no  later  than  March  30,  2002,  in  accordance 
with COMDTINST 1900.2.  The record indicates, however, that he did not learn 
about  the  permissive  TAD  benefit  until  June  18,  2002,  just  12  days  prior  to  his 
retirement.   Furthermore, the sworn statement from his supervisor indicates that 
he would have been allowed to go on permissive TAD, instead of using annual 
leave, if he had applied for it. 
 
 
The Board finds that the applicant has proved by a preponderance 
of  the  evidence  that  the  Coast  Guard  committed  an  error  by  failing  timely  to 
counsel  him  about  his  eligibility  for  20  days  of  permissive  TAD.    The  Coast 
Guard indicated that the discrepancy could have been handled administratively 
prior to the applicant’s retirement and recommended that the Board grant relief.  
The Board finds that in light of the delay in the counseling, the applicant’s record 
should be corrected to indicate that any days of annual leave, up to 20 total, that 
he took from January 1 through June 30, 2002, should be reclassified as days of 
permissive duty.  Moreover, his record should be corrected to show that he sold 
those  days  of  unused  annual  leave  upon  his  retirement,  as  permitted  under 
37 U.S.C. § 501. 
 
 
 
 
 

Accordingly, relief should be granted.  

3. 

4. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

 
 
 
 

ORDER 

 

The application of retired xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction 

of his military record is granted as follows: 

 
His record shall be corrected to show that any days of annual leave—up to 
a maximum of 20—that he took from January 1 through June 30, 2002, were days 
of permissive temporary duty instead of days of annual leave.  In addition, his 
record shall be corrected to show that he sold those days of unused annual leave 
upon his retirement, as permitted under 37 U.S.C. § 501. 

 
The Coast Guard shall pay him any sum he may be due as a result of this 

 
 

 
 

correction. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Julia Andrews 

 

 

 
 Stephen H. Barber 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 Christopher A. Cook 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                      Memorandum 

 
 

 Subject:  ADVISORY OPINION IN CGBCMR 
DOCKET NO. 2002-131  (XXXXX) 

  From:  Chief Counsel, U.S. Coast Guard  

Date: 

Reply to 
Attn. Of: 

 
5420/3 
G-LMJ 
7-0272 

To:  Chairman, Board for Correction 

 
                of Military Records (C-60) 

Ref:  (a) Applicant's DD Forms 149 filed 2 July 2002 

 
1.  I  adopt  the  analysis  and  fact-finding  provided  by  Commander,  Coast 
Guard  Personnel  Command  in  enclosure  (1)  and  request  you  accept  his 
comments    as  the  Coast  Guard’s  advisory  opinion  recommending  granting 
relief in the instant case. 
 
 
 
 
Encl: 

GENELLE T. VACHON 

       By direction 

(1)  CGPC (adm) ltr 5420 of 18 Oct 2002  
(2)  Applicant's Service Record 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

Command 
United States Coast Guard 
 

2100 Second Street, S.W. 
Washington, DC 20593-0001 
Staff Symbol: CGPC-adm-2 
Phone: (202) 267-6969 
Fax: (202) 267-4381 
Email:  
 
 
 

Reply 
to 
Attn of: 

ENS Crespo 
7-6969 

MEMORANDUM 
 
From
: 

G.W. PALMER 
CGPC-c 

 
To: 
 

Commandant  
(G-LMJ) 

Subj:  PROGRAM INPUT ON CGBCMR APPLICATION (xxxxx) 
 
Ref: 
 
1.  Comments on the application contained in reference (a) are attached as enclosure (1). 

 
(a) CGBCMR Application 2002-131 

2.  I recommend relief be granted.   

# 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

Enclosure 1 - CGBCMR 2002-131 

 
RELIEF REQUESTED BY APPLICANT: 
 
1.  Applicant requests that 20 days leave he was charged be re-credited to him and that 

he be allowed to sell it back in conjunction with HIS retirement. 

 
APPLICANT’S STATED BASIS FOR RELIEF: 
 
1.  Applicant  alleges 

that  he  was  not  counseled  concerning 

the  20  days 
“relocation/transition”  permissive  TAD  that  may  be  granted  to  retiring  members.  
He states that because he was not counseled, he took 20 unnecessary days of leave 
prior to his retirement, and that had he known of the permissive absence benefit, he 
would have used it and sold the 20 days leave back. 

 
MATTERS OF RECORD: 
 
1.  The application is timely. 
 
2.  Coast Guard Personnel Commander (CGPC-opm) letter 1810 dated August 1, 2001.  

Applicant issued retirement orders, effective July 1, 2002. 

 
3.  Commandant  Instruction  1900.2,  Transition  Assistance  Program.    This  instruction 
promulgates  information  and  guidance  to  implement  a  Transition  Assistance 
Program  that  includes  the  formal  counseling  of  all  Coast  Guard  members  being 
separated  or  retired  and  lists  transition  benefits  available  to  these  members.  
Paragraph 5.a. of this instruction establishes the mandatory procedure to counsel all 
retiring members on transition benefits within 90 days of retirement.  Enclosure 4 to 
this instruction lists 10 days permissive TAD (absence not chargeable as leave) as a 
transition benefit available to retiring members. 

 
4.  Article  7.A.10.b.11  and  Article  12.C.1.f  of  Commandant  Instruction  M6000.1, 
Personnel Manual.  These articles of the Personnel Manual authorizes the granting 
of  up  to  20  days  permissive  TAD  to  retiring  members  to  “facilitate  relocation.”   
 

5.  CG  HRSIC-2045,  Career  Intentions  Worksheet  dated  March  12,  2002.    Applicant 
provided  information concerning  his  retirement  intentions.    In  the  section  marked 
“For  Retirement  Only,”  for  the  question  “Permissive  Temp  Duty,”  the  Applicant 
made  no  election.    The  Applicant  and  his  division  chief  signed  the  form.   
 

6.  DD Form 2648, Preseparation Counseling Checklist dated June 18, 2002.  This form 
documents that the Applicant received formal counseling on his transition benefits 
on  June  18,  2002.      In  block  13a.  Relocation  Assistance/Permissive  TAD,  the 
applicant  indicated  he  desired  counseling  about  this  benefit.    The  Applicant’s 

 

 

transition counseling was conducted by Ms. C.J. Johnson, the Transition Assistance 
Specialist on the MLC Pacific Work-Life staff. 

 
7.  Conversation  between  LT  MacDhubhain,  CGPC-adm-2  and  CWO  Ross  Williams, 
Chief,  ISC  Alameda  PERSRU  on  September  27,  2002.    CGPC-adm-2  contacted  the 
Supervisor of the Applicant’s PERSRU, who prepared and submitted his retirement 
documents to HRSIC.  CWO Williams stated that the Applicant visited him on June 
18, 2002 and explained that he had just learned about the permissive TAD benefit.  
The  Applicant  requested  that  20  days  leave  he  had  taken  in  increments  over  the 
months  preceding  his  retirement  date  be  re-credited  to  his  leave  balance  and  be 
converted  to  permissive  TAD.    He  claimed  that  he  had  never  been  counseled 
concerning  this  benefit  and  that  he  was  sure  that  his  supervisor  would  have 
approved a request for this benefit.  The Applicant stated to CWO Williams that his 
intention was to then sell back this re-credited 20 days leave upon retirement.  CWO 
Williams stated that he advised the Applicant that his request to re-credit his leave 
was too administratively complex to process and that the Human Resources Services 
and Information Center (HRSIC) would question why so much leave was being re-
credited.  He advised the Applicant to seek relief via the BCMR. 

 
8.  Declaration  of  Ms.  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  Branch,  MLCPAC  dated  June  24, 
2002.  This is a statement from the Applicant’s supervisor at the time of these events.  
Ms.  xxxxxx  declares  that  had  the  Applicant  requested  the  permissive  TAD  benefit 
from her prior to his retirement, she knows of no reason why she would not have 
granted it. 

 
 
9.  July 1, 2002.  Applicant retired from the Coast Guard.  Applicant sold back 23.5 days 
of  leave.    Members  are  entitled  to  sell  up  to  60  days  leave  during  their  career  – 
Applicant had never previously sold leave prior to his retirement. 

 
CONCLUSIONS: 
 
1.    At  the  time  the  Applicant  completed  his  career  intentions  worksheet,  he  made  no 
indication of his desire to take permissive TAD, however, at that point he had not yet 
been counseled concerning his transition benefits. 
 
2.    The  applicant  was  not  formally  counseled  concerning  his  eligibility  for  transition 
benefits  until  12  days  before  his  retirement,  contrary  to  the  requirement  to  counsel 
members at least 90 days prior to retirement. 
 
3.  Irrespective of why the delay in the Applicant’s counseling occurred, it is clear that 
as  soon  as  the  Applicant  became  consciously  aware  of the  permissive  TAD  transition 
benefit, he attempted to remedy his problem by bringing it to the attention of the office 
processing his retirement.  He also went to the trouble of obtaining a statement from his 

 

 
supervisor that she would have granted the permissive absence if he had asked for it.  
He immediately went to his PERSRU and requested that they re-credit his leave so he 
could sell it back.  The PERSRU could have properly taken this action – they had the 
technical  capability  to  delete  previously  submitted  leave  documents.    Instead,  they 
informed  the  Applicant  that  this  was  too  complex  and  might  be  questioned  by  the 
HRSIC.  This is probably true, but the Applicant’s situation was unique and could have 
been explained to HRSIC if questions arose. 
 
RECOMMENDATION: 
 
1.  I recommend the requested relief be granted.  The Applicant should be paid for 20 
days  leave  he  would  have  sold  upon  retirement  if  he  had  been  counseled  on  the 
permissive TAD benefit in a proper and timely manner in accordance with current 
regulations.