DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for Correction
of Coast Guard Record of:
BCMR Docket
No. 2003-018
FINAL DECISION
This final decision, dated October 30, 2003, is signed by the three duly
This is a proceeding under section 1552 of title 10 and section 425 of title
14 of the United States Code. It was docketed on December 2, 2002, upon the
BCMR's receipt of the applicant's complete application for the correction of his
military record.
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case.
The applicant asked that money withheld from his pay to cover several
days of excess leave1 be returned to him. He stated that $1,905.55 has been
withheld from his pay for this purpose.
According to the record, the Coast Guard withheld from the applicant's
pay, the cost for several days of excess leave that he used in December 2001 and
January 2002, March 2002, and April 2002. Apparently upon taking leave during
these periods, the applicant had already used all of the leave available to him for
his four year and nine month enlistment. His then-enlistment contract was due
to expire on May 25, 2002. Since there was no current enlistment extension in
effect at the time to cover the excess leave, it was charged against the applicant's
pay.
1
Article 7.A.2.d. of the Personnel Manual states that excess leave is authorized
leave over and beyond any earned or advance leave that can be granted during which
the member is not entitled to pay and/or allowances. A minus leave balance at the time
of discharge, first extension of an enlistment, separation from active duty, desertion, or
death is considered as excess leave without regard to the authority under which the
leave resulting in a minus balance was granted.
Article 7.A.4.b. states, "Officers granting leave should caution personnel that
advance leave resulting in a minus balance on the date of discharge, first extension of
enlistment or separation from active duty becomes excess leave and is subject to
checkage of pay and allowances."
The applicant stated that his request for a one-year extension had been
approved in January 2002 and that his Personnel Reporting Unit (PERSRU) was
supposed to submit the necessary paperwork. He claimed that he learned on
April 30, 2002, that the PERSRU had not submitted his request for an enlistment
extension. The applicant stated that "I don't think it is unreasonable for me to be
paid for services rendered and hope that you can help me rectify this problem
. . ." He stated that the loss of pay is a financial burden for him.
applicant. The CO wrote the following:
The applicant's commanding officer (CO) wrote a letter of support for the
[The applicant] had a negative leave balance, as permitted by
COMDTINST 1000.6A, Personnel Manual. Both he and his
supervisor did not understand the ramifications of carrying a
negative leave balance as he approached his end of enlistment.
[The applicant's] pay began to be docked a significant amount, and
upon determining the cause of the problem he completed a career
intentions worksheet to extend. He then submitted another leave
request (he was getting married), and thought that he would not
have further pay problems. However, he did not understand that
the career intentions worksheet was not sufficient, and that he
needed to sign an extension contract to rectify the problem. His
pay was docked again.
This was a confusing sequence of events for [the applicant], his
supervisor, and my administration staff to sort out. For this good
performing petty officer to bear the financial burden of this poorly
understood facet of the pay system is extremely unfortunate. I
strongly urge relief be granted in this instance.
On March 3, 2003, the BCMR received the views of the Coast Guard. The
in recommending relief, adopted the comments of the
Views of the Coast Guard
Chief Counsel,
Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC).
CGPC stated that there is no evidence in the record that the applicant's
leave balance was computed when he requested leave for December 2001 or that
he was counseled, as required by the Personnel Manual, that entering into an
excess leave status would result in checkage of his pay and allowances. See
Articles 7.A.4.b. and 7.A.19.a(1) of the Personnel Manual. CGPC stated that the
applicant's PERSRU failed to properly counsel him, and that if the applicant had
been properly counseled, he would have had the opportunity to withdraw his
request for leave during the months of December 2001 and January 2002.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
With respect to excess leave charged to the applicant in March and April
2002, CGPC stated that although the applicant was aware of being in an excess
leave status at that time, he mistakenly believed that submission of his career
intentions worksheet indicating an intention to extend his enlistment would
protect him from an excess leave status. He stated that the applicant should have
been counseled to extend his enlistment at the earliest date permitted under the
Personnel Manual. CGPC concluded that the "periods of excess leave charged in
March and April would have been avoided if more care and diligence was
exercised by administrative personnel to assist the applicant in this matter."
CGPC stated that no excess leave has been charged against the applicant's
pay since April 2002. The applicant executed a two-year enlistment extension on
May 1, 2002.
Applicant's Reply to the Coast Guard Views
Guard and agreed with them.
On March 18, 2003, the applicant responded to the views of the Coast
1. The BCMR has jurisdiction of the case pursuant to section 1552 of title
The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of
the applicant's military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission,
and applicable law:
10 of the United States Code. The application is timely.
2. The Coast Guard recommended and the Board finds that the applicant
is entitled to relief. In this regard, the Board finds by a preponderance of the
evidence that the applicant was not informed that he was in an excess leave
status in December 2001 and January 2002, as required by the Personnel Manual.
Nor was he informed at this time that excess leave could result in a loss of pay if
there was insufficient time remaining in his enlistment to cover the excess leave
period. See Articles 7A.3.g. & 7.A.4.b. of the Personnel Manual. The Coast
Guard's failure to inform the applicant of these facts caused the applicant to
unknowingly enter into an excess leave status and to suffer a financial loss.
3. The Board finds that the excess leave charged to the applicant in March
and April 2002, could have been avoided if the applicant's PERSRU had
complied with Article 7.A.4.c. of the Personnel Manual, which prohibited the
granting of additional advanced leave that could not be earned by the discharge
date. The situation was further exacerbated by the PERSRU's delay in processing
the applicant's January 2002 request for an enlistment extension. The PERSRU's
failures resulted in an injustice to the applicant.
4. The Board notes that the applicant has been on continuous active duty
since his enlistment in 1997 and that the excess leave days can be recouped from
his current and future leave balances if the money withheld from his pay is
returned to him.
5. Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to relief.
ORDER
The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for the correction of his
military is granted. His record shall be corrected to show that he was not
charged with excess leave between December 1, 2001 and April 30, 2002. The
Coast Guard is directed to take the necessary action to remove excess leave
charges from the applicant's record. The approximately 13 days of excess leave
shall be deducted from the applicant's current and future leave balances. The
Coast Guard shall return to the applicant the money withheld from his pay to
cover the excess leave charges.
_______________________________
Janis Monk
_______________________________
Dorothy J. Ulmer
_______________________________
Thomas H. Van Horn
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2002-131
However, he alleged, he was not timely counseled about TAP and so took 20 days of annual leave instead of requesting an administrative absence. 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. Applicant alleges that he was not counseled concerning the 20 days “relocation/transition” permissive TAD that may be...
CG | BCMR | Retirement Cases | 2003-021
On July 31, 2002, the PERSRU advised HRSIC, and HRSIC took action to ensure that the applicant’s active duty pay would continue beyond his scheduled retirement date. It is an injustice to deprive the Applicant his active duty pay for work performed.” CGPC recommended that relief be granted by correcting the applicant’s retire- ment date to December 1, 2002; by awarding him all appropriate back pay and allow- ances and recouping the retirement pay he received; by correcting his record to...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2001-086
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. 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...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2005-152
In his application to the BCMR, the applicant alleged that when he reenlisted on May 2, 2003, he was not advised that because he was signing an indefinite reenlistment it was his last opportunity to sell leave until he retired from the Coast Guard. In that case, the JAG recommended that the Board grant relief because there was no evidence in the applicant’s record that he was counseled about the lump sum leave policy when he signed the indefinite reenlistment contract. CGPC stated in...
In his application to the BCMR, the applicant alleged that when he reenlisted on May 2, 2003, he was not advised that because he was signing an indefinite reenlistment it was his last opportunity to sell leave until he retired from the Coast Guard. In that case, the JAG recommended that the Board grant relief because there was no evidence in the applicant’s record that he was counseled about the lump sum leave policy when he signed the indefinite reenlistment contract. CGPC stated in...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2004-040
The applicant alleged that his name was unfairly removed from the YNC advancement list after he received a mediocre Enlisted Performance Evaluation Form (EPEF) for the evaluation period from June 1 to November 30, 2002, and was not rec- ommended for advancement on the EPEF by his rating chain.1 The applicant stated that upon completing the Service-Wide Examination (SWE) for YNC in May 2002, he 1 Enlisted members are evaluated by a rating chain, which consists of a supervisor, who...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2004-008
On April 10, 2003, after consulting with counsel, he waived his right to a hearing and to submit a statement in his own behalf On April 10, 2003, the CO recommended to the Coast Guard Personnel Com- mand (CGPC) that the applicant receive a general discharge for homosexual conduct because of (a) his admissions, (b) his past poor performance, and (c) his “fail[ure] to uphold the basic core values of loyalty and integrity.” On April 28, 2003, CGPC ordered the CO to discharge the applicant as...
On November 2, 2002, the applicant’s PERSRU recommended remission of the $5,748.29 debt in full, finding that “it is reasonable to assume [the applicant] was not properly counseled.” The PERSRU noted that the applicant’s record contains no CG- 3307 documenting SRB counseling upon his enlistment in April 1999 or at the time his change in rating was approved by CGPC. (7) of Enclosure (1) and Enclosure (3) to COMDTINST 7220.33, the Coast Guard had a duty (a) to counsel the applicant about SRB...
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...
VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On April 25, 2003, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant the applicant’s request.2 The Chief Counsel stated that the “Coast Guard concedes that this Applicant met the eligibility criteria for an SRB at the time he reenlisted on 1 July, 2002.” The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant was eligible for the SRB because he “reenlisted within 3 months after the end of his enlistment/date after separation from active duty and...