DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2005-152 
 
XXXXXXXXXXX. 
Xxx xx xxxx, HS1 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
AUTHOR:  Hale, 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 Chair docketed the 
case on September 2, 2005, upon receipt of the completed application.  
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  May  18,  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 
indefinite reenlistment on May 2, 2003, he sold 30 days of accrued annual leave.  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.    He  also  stated  that 
when he completed his Career Intentions Worksheet prior to his indefinite reenlistment, 
he did not indicate on the form that he wanted to sell any leave, because it was his belief 
that the section of the form where a member indicates that they want to sell leave  
 
 

only applied to personnel who were being discharged or up for RELAD [release 
from  active  duty].    This  was  because  the  form  is  broken  into  sections  and  it 
appeared  that  the  leave  section  related  directly  to  the  one  above.    As  with  the 
policy on lump sale of leave, I received no instruction on the completion of the 
Career Intentions Worksheet.  I was simply instructed to complete the form, sign 
it and turn it in. 

 

The applicant further alleged that he had never sold any leave during his Coast 
Guard career and was completely unaware that unused leave could only be sold upon 
discharge, separation, or just before the effective date of a first extension of enlistment. 
He also alleged that because he did not sell leave in 2003, he has lost 19 days of leave, 
and he asked that this leave be restored to his leave balance.   
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On  December  12,  1983,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  and  after 
completing  recruit  training  he  attended  Health  Services  Technician  “A”  school.1    The 
applicant served in a number of assignments for the next 17 years.  On March 6, 2001, 
the Commandant of the Coast Guard issued ALCOAST 095/01, requiring active duty 
members in pay grades E-5 and above who have at least 10 years of active service and 
whose  enlistments  are  ending  to  sign  indefinite  reenlistment  contracts  instead  of 
extension contracts or reenlistment contracts for a set term of years.  On March 29, 2001, 
the  Commandant  issued  ALPERSRU  I/01  to  instruct  personnel  officers  on  the  new 
indefinite reenlistment policy.  It states that a member serving on an indefinite contract 
may  request  separation  from  the  Coast  Guard  but  must  do  so  at  least  six  months  in 
advance  of  the  requested  separation  date.    The  ALPERSRU  further  provides  the 
following: 

 
Members subject to the new indefinite reenlistment policy should be counseled concern-
ing lump sum leave entitlements.  The date the member executes an indefinite reenlist-
ment  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]. 

 

On May 7, 2001, the changes to the indefinite reenlistment policy were entered 

into the Coast Guard Personnel Manual. 

 
On May 2, 2003, having served more than 19 years of active service and reaching 
the rank of HS1 (pay grade E-6), the applicant completed a Career Intentions Worksheet 
and  signed  an  indefinite  reenlistment  contract.    The  Career  Intentions  Worksheet 
includes  a  section  on  the  second  page  marked  “Leave  Section”  wherein  members 
indicate if they wish to sell any leave.  A copy of the worksheet is not in the applicant’s 
record.2  The indefinite reenlistment contract signed by the applicant includes a section 
near the bottom of the form containing the statement “[m]ember is not selling leave.”  
Although  the  applicant  signed  his  initials  on  the  bottom  of  the  contract,  there  is  no 
evidence in the applicant’s record that he received the obligatory counseling regarding 
the sale of leave under ALPERSRU I/01. 

 

                                                 
1 Class “A” School is where Coast Guard members receive training for their specific rate. 
2 The JAG stated that the Career Intentions Worksheet is not a permanent record document and is not placed in a 
member’s personnel data record. 

 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On January 10, 2006, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard sub-
mitted  an  advisory  opinion  in  which  he  recommended  that  the  Board  deny  the 
applicant’s request.  He based his recommendation on a memorandum on the case pre-
pared by the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC). 
 
 
CGPC  stated  that  Article  7.A.20.  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel Manual  is  clear 
regarding the sale of leave and that there is no specific requirement to document that a 
member  has  been  counseled  on  leave  accrual  and  sale  policies.  In  addition,  CGPC 
opined  that  the  applicant’s  record  does  not  support  his  claim  that  he  suffered  an 
administrative error when he signed his May 2, 2003, indefinite reenlistment contract. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On February 7, 2006, the applicant responded to the views of the Coast Guard.  
He  reiterated  that  when  he  signed  his  Career  Intentions  Worksheet  he  was  “neither 
given  nor  offered  any  instruction”  on  filling  out  the  form.    He  added  that  he  was 
unfamiliar with this particular document because a Career Intentions Worksheet is only 
filled-out  once  or  twice  in  one’s  career,  and  “[b]ecause  of  this  unfamiliarity  with  the 
form  and  the  fact  that  the  positioning  of  the  items  on  the  form  makes  it  appear  as 
though the leave selling portion is for personnel separating from the service, I did not 
question the yeoman further after completing the extension/reenlistment section as he 
directed me to.”    
 
 
The applicant further alleged that the JAG’s admission that there is no specific 
requirement  to  document  counseling  on  leave  accrual  and  sale  policies  buoys  his 
argument that he was unaware of the Coast Guard policies regarding the sale of leave.  
The  applicant  poignantly  noted  “I  was  no  more  familiar  with  that  manual  [the  Coast 
Guard Personnel Manual] than I was with the Color and Coatings Manual, Simplified 
Acquisitions Manual, or any other general directive that is commonly considered rating 
specific.”    He  further  alleged  that  because  a  member  only  signs  an  indefinite 
reenlistment  once  in  their  career,  the  yeoman  has  a  duty  to  “use  his  rating  specific 
knowledge  and  familiarity  with  administrative  manuals,  policies  and  procedures  to 
ensure accurate completion of forms…” and that because “it [indefinite reenlistment] is 
rarely done by members in their career, I would expect even more attention to be given 
by the yeoman; and that they would ensure the member knew completely what all the 
consequences of their choices are.”  
 
 
Moreover,  the  applicant  argued  that  not  holding  the  yeoman  accountable  for 
proper counseling in this case is “the same as saying that a member should have known 

he  was  mistreated  and  [mis]diagnosed  by  the  unit  HS  because  all  of  the  information 
was  listed  in  the  Medical  Manual  and  other  documentation.”    He  also  added  that  if 
members are expected to read each and every Coast Guard manual and double-check 
the advice they are given by another member, then “why do we specialize in ratings?”   
 
 
Finally,  the  applicant  stated  “it  is  not  unreasonable  to  believe  that  members 
should be able to have faith in other ratings and not have to educate themselves on all 
Coast  Guard  rules,  policies  and  regulations  to  ensure  they  are  informed  and  treated 
fairly.” 
 

BCMR DOCKET No. 2004-016 

 

In  BCMR  Docket  No.  2004-016,  the  applicant  signed  an  indefinite  reenlistment 
contract on October 29, 2002, and alleged that he was not advised that because he was 
signing  an  indefinite  reenlistment,  it  was  his  last  opportunity  to  sell  leave  until  his 
retirement. 
 

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  the 
advisory  opinion  that  “there  is  no  evidence  the  applicant  was  properly  counseled 
concerning  selling  leave  at  the  time  he  executed  his  indefinite  reenlistment  contract,” 
and that “it is in the interest of justice to afford him the option at this time to sell leave 
in any amount up to his unused earned leave balance, not to exceed 30 days, at the time 
he  reenlisted  in  October  20,  2002,  with  the  understanding  that  the  payment  amount 
would be based on his paygrade and rate of pay at that time.” 

 
The Board granted relief, finding that the applicant had a record of twelve years 
of honorable service and signed a sworn statement under penalty of law that he was not 
counseled about the effect of his indefinite reenlistment on his chance to sell leave prior 
to retirement. 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 

Article 7.A.20.a. of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual states that each member 
on active duty is entitled to a lump sum leave payment for unused earned leave accrued 
to his credit on date of discharge, separation from active duty, or the date preceding the 
effective  date  of  first  extension  of  enlistment  regardless  of  duration,  to  a  maximum 
career total of 60 days. 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 

2. 

1. 

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

 
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 appli-
cable law: 
 
 
10 U.S.C. § 1552.  The application was timely. 
 
 
 The  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  not  counseled  about  the  new  sale  of 
leave  policy  when  he  reenlisted  and  that  this  error  caused  him  to  miss  his  last 
opportunity  to  sell  any  unused  leave  until  his  retirement  from  the  Coast  Guard.    He 
also alleged that the yeoman who assisted him with his reenlistment failed to provide 
any  instruction  whatsoever  regarding  the  Career  Intentions  Worksheet.    In  the  JAG’s 
response  to  the  applicant’s  request  for  correction,  the  JAG  argued  that  the  request 
should be denied because Coast Guard policy is clear regarding the sale of leave and 
that there is no specific requirement to document that a member has been counseled on 
leave accrual and sale policies.  
 

3. 

On March 6, 2001, the Commandant of the Coast Guard issued ALCOAST 
095/01, requiring active duty members in pay grades E-5 and above who have at least 
10  years  of  active  service  and  whose  enlistments  are  ending  to  sign  indefinite 
reenlistment  contracts  instead  of  extension  or  reenlistment  contracts  for  a  set  term  of 
years.   A  few  weeks  later the  Commandant  issued  ALPERSRU  I/01,  which    required 
personnel  officers  to  counsel  members  who  were  reenlisting  indefinitely  about  the 
reenlistment  being  their  last  opportunity  to  sell  leave  prior  to  their  retirement. 
However,  neither  the  ALCOAST  nor  the  ALPERSRU  require  that  the  counseling  be 
documented with an administrative entry in the member’s record, and the Board knows 
of no such requirement in the Personnel Manual or elsewhere.  Therefore, the lack of 
documentation  of  counseling  about  the  sale  of  leave  in  the  applicant’s  record  is  not 
probative of whether such counseling actually occurred. 
 
In  applying  to  the  Board,  the  applicant—who  has  an  excellent  record  of 
 
more than twenty years of honorable service—signed a sworn statement under penalty 
of law that he was not counseled about the effect of his indefinite reenlistment on his 
chance  to  sell  leave  prior  to  retirement    The  record  indicates  that  in  accordance  with 
Article 7.A.20. of the Personnel Manual, the applicant could have sold up to 30 days of 
leave when he signed the indefinite reenlistment contract.  Therefore, the Board finds 
that it is in the interest of justice to allow the applicant to sell up to 30 days of leave, 
assuming that he still has sufficient accrued leave at this time.  The Coast Guard shall 
also ensure that the applicant’s leave balances are carried forward, as appropriate.  
 

4. 

5. 

In BCMR Docket No. 2004-016, the JAG recommended granting relief, and 
the  Board  did  so.    The  facts  in  the  instant  case  are  nearly  indistinguishable  from  the 

facts in that case, so the Board does not fathom why the outcome in this case should be 
any different. 
 
 
 
 

Accordingly, relief should be granted. 

6. 

  

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  HS1  xxxx  xxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

military record is granted as follows: 

 
The Coast Guard shall correct his record to show that, upon his discharge and 
indefinite reenlistment on May 2, 2003, he sold a number of days of annual leave that is 
to be determined at his discretion, provided that it shall be no more than 30 days or the 
amount of his accrued leave at the time this order is implemented, whichever is less.  
The Coast Guard shall ensure that his leave balances are adjusted, as necessary. 

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

 
 

correction. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 
 
 Toby Bishop 

 

 

 
 
 Steven J. Pecinovsky 

 

 

 
 Richard Walter