DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for the Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
BCMR Docket No. 2005-092
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxx, YN1
FINAL DECISION
Author: Ulmer, D.
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 application was
docketed on April 15, 2005, upon receipt of the applicant’s completed application and
military records.
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case.
This final decision, dated February 8, 2006, is signed by the three duly appointed
APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS
The applicant asked the Board to correct her record to show that she did not sell
15 days of accrued leave upon her release from active duty. The applicant was released
from active duty into the Reserve on January 22, 2002 and is currently a member of the
Selected Reserve.
The applicant claimed that she never requested to sell leave; nor was she ever
paid for the 15 days listed as leave sold in her record. She stated that she planned to
reenter active duty and might want to sell leave in the future.
The applicant submitted leave and earnings statements (LESs) in support of her
allegation. The LES for the period January 1-31, 2002, showed the applicant had used 23
days of leave, including a charge of 15 days regular leave for the period January 8, 2002,
through January 22, 2002, with no leave sold. The LES informed the applicant that it
was her final active duty LES and that it reflected all pay and leave information
processed through her last day of active duty.
A February 2002 LES shows that the applicant was paid active duty pay and
allowances in the amount of $2,412.76 for that month and her leave account was
corrected to show a 15-day leave balance.
$2,280.67 and that debt collection would begin in June 2002.
Subsequently, a May 2002 LES explained that the applicant had been overpaid by
In June 2002, the Coast Guard sent the applicant another LES showing that 15
days of accrued leave had been sold to reduce the debt she owed to the government.
VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On August 26, 2005, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard
submitted an advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny the applicant’s
request. In recommending denial, the JAG stated that the applicant has the burden of
proving error. The JAG argued that the applicant has provided no evidence that the
Coast Guard committed an error or injustice. To the contrary, according to the JAG, the
record shows that the applicant's leave was sold in accordance with the Coast Guard
Pay Manual, COMDTINST M7220.29A, Art. 10.A.9. to liquidate a debt.
The JAG attached a memorandum from Commander, Coast Guard Personnel
Command (CGPC) as Enclosure (1) to the advisory opinion and asked the Board to
accept it as part of the advisory opinion. CGPC offered the following:
The applicant was discharged from active duty on January 22, 2002,
however due to late processing of documents she received a payment for
mid-month February 2002 in the amount of $2412.76. That payment
caused her to be overpaid by $2280.67 because she was only entitled to
approximately $132 at the time of her separation.
The applicant alleges that she was never paid for the 15 days of leave that
was sold in 2002. However, the leave was sold and used to liquidate the
debt in accordance with [the Pay Manual].
The transaction reflecting the accrued leave payment was on her June 2002
[LES]. The applicant may not have noticed the payment because it was
located on the second page of the LES and was used to offset her active
duty debt by crediting the applicant [with] $840.15.
APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On August 30, 2005, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the views of the
Coast Guard and invited him to respond. The BCMR did not receive a reply from the
applicant.
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:
1.
The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552
of title 10 of the United States Code. The application was timely.
2. Upon release from active duty, the applicant had 15 days of accrued leave.
She failed to prove that the Coast Guard committed an error or injustice by selling the
15 leave days and applying the proceeds against her indebtedness to the government.
The applicant was informed in May 2002 that she had been overpaid in the amount of
$2,280.67 and that the Coast Guard intended to collect the debt. She does not deny that
the Coast Guard mistakenly overpaid her in February 2002.
3. The Coast Guard acted in accordance with the regulation and the applicant's
record correctly reflects the 15 days of leave sold. The Pay Manual states that the lump
sale of leave may be used to liquidate debts to the U.S. Government and it does not
require the consent of the member for lump sale of leave to be used in this manner. See
Chapter 10.A.9. of the Pay Manual.
4. The applicant alleged that she did not receive payment for the leave sold.
However, the Board finds that while she did not personally receive a cash payment, she
benefited by having $840.15 resulting from the sale of leave applied to her indebtedness.
5. Accordingly, the applicant is not entitled to relief.
[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
The application of YN1 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxx, USCGR, for
ORDER
correction of her military record is denied.
Kevin M. Walker
Richard Walter
Kenneth Walton
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...
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 | Other Cases | 2008-074
The date the member executes an indefinite reenlistment will be the last opportunity for the member to sell leave until such time as the member retires/separates, pursuant to article 7.A.20 of [the Personnel Manual]. ALPERSRU 1/01 required personnel officers to counsel members who were reenlisting indefinitely about the reenlistment being their last opportunity to sell leave prior to their retirement. Therefore, the Board finds that it is in the interest of justice to allow the applicant...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2004-016
This final decision, dated June 30, 2004, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that, upon his indefinite reenlistment on October 29, 2002, he sold 30 days of accrued annual leave. of the Personnel Manual, members being discharged may sell leave and that members may sell a maximum of 60 days of unused annual leave during their careers.1 CGPC stated that the applicant sold 30 days of leave when he...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2006-130
[The applicant] further claims that the Commandant of the United States Coast Guard improperly removed him from the rolls of the Coast Guard Reserve. of the Coast Guard Pay Manual and section 501 of title 37 of the United States Code, a member may receive payment for unused accrued leave up to a career maximum of 60 days, which the applicant had already met at the time of his release from active duty in December 2001. The JAG summarized the Coast Guard's recommendations, as follows: A) the...
CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2006-124-TechAmend
The JAG also stated that the applicant was legally entitled to the remaining Zone B SRB payments for his 1998 reenlistment although the SRB regulations did not expressly address the unusual circumstances of the applicant’s case.3 The JAG recommended that the Board void the 2002 contract; reinstate the June 15, 1998, contract to make the applicant eligible for further SRB installments for his service from October 26, 2002, through June 14, 2004; and enter an indefinite reenlistment contract...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2005-081
Although Applicant did have many appointments during the 18 months prior to his retirement from active duty, Applicant took approximately 42 days of leave during the period of time between May 2003 and August 2004. CGPC stated that the applicant's March 31, 2005 leave and earnings statement showed that the applicant had already sold 31 days of leave during his military career and that he sold an additional 29 days of accrued leave upon his retirement, for a total of 60 days. The applicant...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2005-163
This final decision, dated June 20, 2006, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that, upon his reenlistment on April 26, 2005, he sold 30 days of leave. The gist of the complaint is not that the applicant was not counseled about the opportunity to sell leave when he reenlisted, but Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. Accordingly, relief should be denied because the applicant failed to sub- mit...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2011-005
leave when they reenlist indefinitely. The PSC stated that the Coast Guard’s policy is “to provide members the opportunity to sell leave before entering into [an indefinite reenlistment] contract. Effective 1 September 2008, members who are currently serving on an indefinite reenlistment contract are authorized to enter into a new indefinite reenlistment, one time, during a career for the purpose of selling leave.