Search Decisions

Decision Text

CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2003-018
Original file (2003-018.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



Similar Decisions

  • CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2002-131

    Original file (2002-131.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (2003-021.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (2001-086.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (2005-152.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | SRBs | 2005-152

    Original file (2005-152.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (2004-040.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (2004-008.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2003-062

    Original file (2003-062.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (2008-187.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2002-146

    Original file (2002-146.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...