DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2007-190 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXX 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
 
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 application on August 
16,  2007,  upon  receipt  of  the  applicant’s  completed  application  and  military  records,  and 
subsequently prepared the final decision as required by 33 C.F.R. § 52.61(c). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  April  30,  2008,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  record  to  show  that  he  sold  25  days  of 
annual leave back to the government when he reenlisted on May 10, 2007.  He alleged that at the 
time he reenlisted, he was not informed that he could sell back leave; nor was an administrative 
remarks entry (page 7) prepared documenting that he had received selective reenlistment bonus 
counseling.    The applicant submitted his reenlistment contract, which did not contain an entry 
with respect to leave sold, but it did contain an entry that the applicant was entitled to a Zone B 
SRB with a multiple of 1.5.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On January 8, 2008, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny the applicant’s request.  The JAG adopted 
the comments provided by Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC), as the Coast 
Guard’s advisory opinion.  CGPC stated the following in pertinent part: 
 

The contract signed by the applicant   . . . is silent with regards to the applicant’s 
intentions regarding selling leave.  The Coast Guard Personnel Manual . . . clearly 
identifies parameters for sale of leave.  The applicant contends that he would have 
sold 25 days of leave at the time of his reenlistment on May 10, 2007.  There is no 
record  of  the  applicant  requesting  to  sell  such  leave  and  the  applicant  has  not 

leave 

to  sell 

substantiated an error or injustice on the part of the Coast Guard with regards to 
the sale of leave.  
 
[T]his case does not involve an indefinite reenlistment.  Therefore, the applicant 
has  further  opportunities 
in  conjunction  with  subsequent 
reenlistments.    Additionally,  as  noted  in  Docket  No.  2005-152  there  is  no 
requirement  for  documenting  counseling  regarding  selling  leave  on  a  CG-3307 
entry and 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.”   
 
The  applicant  further  indicates  in  support  of  his  sale  of  leave  request  that  his 
record is lacking the required [page 7] regarding his reenlistment.  [The Personnel 
Manual]  requires  counseling  upon  reenlistment  with  regards  to  SRB  eligibility.  
The  sale  of  leave  is  not  noted  within  such  counseling  and  the  applicant  is  not 
alleging  that  he  was  improperly  counseled  with  regards  to  his  SRB  eligibility.  
Therefore,  while  the  Coast  Guard  erred  in  not  providing  him  with  a  [page  7] 
regarding his SRB eligibility at the time of his reenlistment, the applicant has not 
stated  that  he  would  have  executed  any  other  contract  beyond  the  four-year 
reenlistment  contract  he  signed  for  which  he  received  a  Zone  B  SRB.    The 
applicant was not disadvantaged by such error.   

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  October  23,  2007,  the  BCMR  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  views  of  the  Coast 

 
 
Guard for a response.  The Board did not receive a response 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.  Section 501 of Title 37 of the United States Code and Article 7.A.1. of the Personnel 
Manual authorize a member of the Coast Guard to sell to a maximum of 60 days of annual leave 
upon  discharge  or  to  sell  a  portion  of  leave  and  carry  the  remaining  balance  forward  upon 
discharge  and  reenlistment.    However,  the  regulation  provides  no  particular  procedure  or 
directive for notifying a member about the sale of leave i.e. it does not require the Coast Guard to 
counsel a member about the opportunity to sell leave upon discharge.  Therefore, no error was 
committed, if as alleged, the Coast Guard failed to counsel the applicant about the opportunity to 
sell leave.   
 
3.  The applicant has also failed to prove that the Coast Guard committed an injustice by 
 
not counseling him about the opportunity to sell leave when he reenlisted in 2007.  Injustice is 
defined “as treatment by military authorities that shocks the sense of justice but is not technically 

illegal.”    See  Reale  v.  United  States,  208  Ct.  Cl.  1010,  1011-12  (1976).    Article  7A.  of  the 
Personnel Manual contains information about selling leave and was available for review by the 
applicant.  The fact that Coast Guard personnel did not notify or counsel the applicant personally 
about the sale of leave does not shock the Board’s sense of justice, since such notification is not 
required.  As the Coast Guard noted, the applicant will have another opportunity to sell leave 
after he completes his current four-year enlistment.       
 
4.    The  Coast  Guard  failed  to  counsel  the  applicant  on  a  page  7  about  his  SRB 
 
opportunity when he reenlisted as required by the Personnel Manual.  However, this failure by 
the  Coast  Guard  does  not  prove  that  it  committed  an  error  with  respect  to  not  counseling  or 
informing the applicant about the opportunity to sell annual leave, particularly since no duty to 
counsel is imposed on the Coast Guard by law or regulation.  Moreover, there is nothing on the 
SRB counseling entry about the sale of annual leave.   
 
 
record and his request for relief should be denied.  
 
 
 

5.   Accordingly,  the  applicant  has  failed  to  prove  an  error  or  injustice  in  his  military 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

 
 
 

The application of XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, USCG, for correction of his military record 

ORDER 

 

 

 
 

is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Bruce D. Burkley 

 

 

 
 Randall J. Kaplan 

 

 

 
 James E. McLeod