DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2005-163 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
AUTHOR:  Andrews, J. 
 
 
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 8, 2005, upon receipt of the completed application.  
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

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 applicant stated that he 
had planned to take leave from August 25, 2005, to September 21, 2005, but his “leave 
got canceled … due to operational commitments” of his unit.  The applicant stated that 
at the end of fiscal year 2005, he would lose about 26 days of leave because his leave 
had been canceled and he is permitted to “carry over” just 60.5 days of leave. 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

On  June  25,  1996,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard.    The  applicant’s 
record indicates that he works very hard.  He has received especially high marks for his 
stamina  and  adaptability.    The only  negative  page  7  in the  record  is  dated  March  31, 
1998,  when  the  applicant  was  still  a  third  class  petty  officer.    It  states  that  before  he 
could be recommended for advancement, he needed to “improve in leadership and task 
direction”  because  “[y]ou  have  repeatedly  taken  it  upon  yourself  to  accomplish 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2005-163                                                                  p. 2 

assigned tasks alone.  You have been verbally counseled by your Leading Petty Officer 
on several occasions to delegate assignments where possible, but have failed to do so.” 

 
On April 26, 2005, the applicant was discharged and reenlisted for six years.  He 
did not sell leave at that time.  A Coast Guard database indicates that he has never sold 
leave. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On January 24, 2006, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard sub-
mitted an advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny the appli-
cant’s request.  He based his recommendation on a memorandum on the case prepared 
by the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC). 
 
 
CGPC stated that there is no indication on the applicant’s reenlistment contract 
that he asked to sell leave.  CGPC stated that Article 7.A.20. of the Coast Guard Person-
nel Manual is clear regarding the sale of leave upon discharge and reenlistment.  CGPC 
also stated the following: 
 

The  Applicant  contends  that  since  he  was  not  counseled  at  the  time  of 
reenlistment regarding the sale of leave, he should be allowed to modify 
his previously executed contract to avoid loss of leave.  Coast Guard pol-
icy is clear regarding the sale of leave and there is no specific requirement 
to  document  counseling  on  leave  accrual  and  sale  policies.    A  review  of 
the  Applicant’s  record  does  not  support  his  claim  that  he  suffered  an 
administrative error regarding the execution of [the April 26, 2005, reen-
listment contract. 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On January 25, 2006, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast 

 
 
Guard and invited him to respond.  No response was received.   
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 

Article 7.A.15.a. of the Personnel Manual states that “[e]arned leave may exceed 
60 days during a fiscal year, but must be reduced to 60 days on the first day of the next 
fiscal  year  except  as  outlined  in  paragraphs  b.  through  d.  below.  The  amount  so 
reduced is irrevocably lost without compensation.” 
 

Article 7.A.15.b. states that members may carry over 90 days of leave if they have 
been serving “on active duty for at least 120 days continuously in an area where they 
are entitled to special pay for duty subject to hostile fire.”  

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2005-163                                                                  p. 3 

 

Article  7.A.15.c.  states  that  “[p]ersonnel  serving  aboard  any  ship  or  aircraft 
which deploys and operates away from its homeport or homebase for more than 60 con-
secutive  days  may  accrue  leave  in  excess  of  60  days  to  a  maximum  of  90  days.    This 
provision  does  not  apply  to  units  undergoing  maintenance  or  repair  at  a  shipyard or 
drydock facility.  Personnel serving less than 60 consecutive days on an eligible unit are 
not entitled to carry over leave in excess of 60 days. …” 
 

Article 7.A.15.d. states that “[p]ersonnel serving on other prescribed duty for a 
continuous period of 60 days or more during a fiscal year may also qualify for accrued 
leave.    The  situation  preventing  the  member  assigned  to  this  duty  from  using  leave 
must have been caused by unscheduled operational commitment, national emergency 
or  crisis,  or  operations  in  defense  of  national  security.  This  duty  must  preclude  the 
member from taking leave to reduce their leave balance to 60 days prior to the end of 
the fiscal year.” 

 
7.A.20.a. states that “[e]ach member on active duty, except those listed in para-
graph  b.  below,  is  entitled  to  a  lump  sum  leave  payment  for  unused  earned  leave 
accrued  to  his  or  her  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. A combination of cash settlement and carryover 
of unused leave is permissible in addition to any leave accumulated due to service in a 
hostile fire pay area.” 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

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  because  of  operational  commitments,  he  was 
 
unable  to  take  several  weeks  of  scheduled  leave  at  the  end  of  fiscal  year  2005.    He 
alleged  that  he  therefore  lost  the  leave  unjustly  when  the  new  fiscal  year  began.    He 
asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  record  to  show  that  he  sold  30  days  of  leave  when  he 
reenlisted in April 2005. 
 

1. 

2. 

3. 

In the advisory opinion, CGPC mischaracterized the applicant’s complaint 
as  a  complaint  about  a  lack  of  counseling.    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. 2005-163                                                                  p. 4 

4. 

that he was unable to take scheduled leave at the end of the fiscal year due to his unit’s 
operational commitments.  
 
Article  7.A.15. of  the Personnel  Manual  acknowledges  that  members  are 
 
sometimes unable to use their accrued leave due to circumstances beyond their control.  
The list of such  circumstances includes service in hostile territory, extended sea duty, 
and, under subparagraph d., “unscheduled operational commitment, national emergency or 
crisis,  or  operations  in  defense  of  national  security.”    (Emphasis  added.)    Under  such 
circumstances, Article 7.A.15. allows members to carry up to 90 days of accrued leave 
into the next fiscal year. 
 

Absent specific evidence to the contrary, the Board must presume that the 
applicant’s command acted “correctly, lawfully, and in good faith” in not allowing the 
applicant to carry over more than 60 days of accrued leave at the end of fiscal year 2005 
pursuant to the provisions of Article 7.A.15.1  The applicant submitted no evidence —
such as a statement from his commanding officer or executive officer—to show that an 
“unscheduled operational commitment” prevented him from taking leave or even that 
he had scheduled leave from August 25 to September 21, 2005, which was involuntarily 
canceled by his command for whatever reason. 
 
 
Accordingly, relief should be denied because the applicant failed to sub-
mit  evidence  to  show  that  the  alleged  circumstances  that  prevented  him  from  using 
leave at the end of fiscal year 2005 fell within the parameters of Article 7.A.15., subpara-
graphs  b.,  c.,  or  d.,  so  that  he  should  have  been  allowed  to  carry  up  to  90  days  of 
accrued leave into fiscal year 2006. 
 
 
 
 

6. 

5. 

  

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

                                                 
1 Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. 
Cl. 1979); see 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b).  

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2005-163                                                                  p. 5 

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his 

military record is denied. 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 George J. Jordan  

 

 

 
  Adrian Sevier 

 

 

 
 Kenneth Walton