DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2008-060 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

FINAL DECISION 

This is a proceeding under 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  January  11,  2008,  upon 
receipt of the applicant’s completed application, and assigned it to staff member J. Andrews to 
prepare the decision for the Board 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 September 11, 2008, is approved and signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant asked the Board to award him compensation for 36 days of annual leave, 
which he lost when he retired from active duty in the Coast Guard on September 1, 2007, and 
was immediately hired by the Coast Guard as a civilian employee.  The applicant alleged that 
when the civilian position at his unit opened up, it “required immediate, albeit uncoordinated, 
action [for him] to simultaneously apply [for the civilian job] and retire [from active duty] for in 
what I believed was the proper time frame.”  He alleged that the Coast Guard did not properly 
coordinate his retirement and hiring and so he was unable to go on terminal leave and lost 36 
days of leave.  He also alleged that he was never advised that government funds were low or that 
taking the civilian job would make him less deserving of using up his excess leave.  The appli-
cant alleged that when he left active duty in the Navy in 1988, the Navy yeomen “made sure [he] 
got everything [he]’d earned, but not one CG administrator seemed to have any experience with 
[his] predicament.”  In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted several email messages 
and other documents, which are included in the summary of the record below. 

 

 
 

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
In a memorandum dated June 29, 2007, the applicant submitted to the Coast Guard Per-
sonnel  Command  (CGPC)  through  the  commanding  officer  (CO)  of  the  Marine  Safety  Unit 
(MSU) where he was stationed a formal request to retire on September 1, 2007, to fill a civilian 
watchstanding vacancy in the Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) Department of the same MSU.  Para-

graph 4 of his request stated, “I understand if I request to later cancel or amend this retirement, it 
will be considered solely on the needs of the service.” 

 
On July 3, 2007, the CO of the MSU endorsed the applicant’s request to retire on Sep-
tember 1, 2007, noting that he had served faithfully for 22 years.  The CO also noted that the 
applicant had served in his billet at the MSU for more than three years and so was eligible to 
retire.  Paragraph 2 of the CO’s endorsement stated that “I understand and recognize that if [the 
applicant’s] voluntary retirement is approved, his replacement may not be immediately available.  
This unit readily accepts this situation and will make provisions should a replacement not arrive 
before his departure.”  

 
On July 5, 2007, Mr. E, the Retirements Section Team Leader at the Coast Guard Person-
nel Command (CGPC), advised the applicant that his request for retirement had been received 
but was incomplete because the applicant needed to include a statement acknowledging that if he 
was being evaluated for a physical disability his request for retirement could be terminated. 

 
On July 9, 2007, the applicant replied to Mr. E and wrote that “I have emailed the state-

ment to [YN1 R] and will copy my admin.”1  

 
On Friday, July 27, 2007, the applicant emailed YN1 R regarding his “expedited retire-
ment request.”  He stated that he needed to begin terminal leave as soon as possible to start train-
ing for a civilian position.  He noted that he had almost two months of accumulated leave to use 
and asked which office had authority to authorize terminal leave. 

 
On Tuesday, July 31, 2007, the applicant emailed the Personnel Services Center (PSC) 
and asked if there was any new information or policy change affecting a retiree moving directly 
from  active  duty  to  a  civilian  position.    He  noted  that  his  start  date  for  the  civilian  job  was 
August 20 and that he might not be able to attend a pre-retirement information class.  The PSC 
advised the applicant that he could “move right into the GS job.  If you are on terminal leave you 
must have your CO’s approval.” 

 
On Wednesday, August 1, 2007, the applicant emailed YNC L, his unit’s administrative 
officer, and stated that his “GS package is approved and I was given start date of 20 AUG.  My 
physical [examination] will be completed and [CGPC]-epm2 has approved my retirement.  What 
do we need to coordinate terminal leave commencing with this date?”  YNC L forwarded his 
email  to  another  yeoman  at  the  MSU,  YN1  H,  the  same  day  and  asked  her  to  help  him.    In 
response, YN1 H asked the applicant if he had an approved retirement date as there was none 
shown in the Direct Access database.  She stated that once his retirement date was approved, 
they could set his terminal leave. 

 
On Friday, August 3, 2007, the applicant emailed a chief warrant officer, stating that Mr. 
E had advised him that there was no provision for his terminal leave in the Direct Access data-
base and that he was told he needed an approved retirement date before his administrative office 
could process his request for two months of terminal leave.  He asked if he needed to amend his 
                                                 
1 The statement the applicant emailed to YN1 R is not in the record. 
 

retirement request date from September 1 to November 1 to be paid for his terminal leave instead 
of losing it. 

 
Also on Friday, August 3, 2007, the applicant asked the Lead Military Pay Technician at 

PSC for advice about the issues in his email to the chief warrant officer earlier that day. 

 
On Monday, August 6, 2007, the Lead Military Pay Technician at PSC advised the appli-
cant to contact the PSC’s customer service branch and noted that he would have to submit an on-
line request through Customer Care.  

 
A print-out from the Direct Access database indicates that on August 6, 2007, the appli-
cant’s CO agreed to endorse his request to retire on September 1, 2007, even though his active 
duty billet would likely not be filled until the following assignment season (summer 2008).   

 
On Tuesday morning, August 7, 2007, Mr. E advised the applicant that “as a result of 
your command’s agreement ([CDR O’s] e-mail of 8/6/07) to the gap [in filling his active duty 
billet] resulting from your retirement, your request for retirement has been approved and proc-
essed in Direct Access.  Your preliminary retirement orders are now available in Direct Access.  
Please contact your command office and your servicing personnel office (SPO) immediately in 
order to start your retirement process.”   

 
On Tuesday afternoon, August 7, 2007, YN1 H emailed Mr. E, stating that the unit had 
received the applicant’s retirement orders but that in requesting a retirement date of September 1, 
the applicant “did not take into consideration that he has 57 days of leave on the books.”  She 
asked  if  the  applicant’s  approved  retirement  date  could  be  moved  to  November  1  so  that  he 
would be paid for the leave. 

 
On Wednesday, August 8, 2007, at 5:28 a.m., Mr. E replied that the applicant “has an 
approved retirement date based upon his own request that was submitted outside of the normal 
window for requesting retirement as provided for in CG policy.  His request was approved based 
upon additional input from his command.  Therefore, if he now desires not to retire on this date, 
he  will  need  to  submit  a  request,  as  he  did  with  his  original  request,  to  delay  or  cancel  his 
approved retirement and for what reasons.  However, keep in mind that merely to use leave is not 
a viable reason to cancel or change an approved retirement.  Article 12.C.11.c. of the Personnel 
Manual applies.” 

 
On Wednesday, August 8, 2007, at 7:56 a.m., the yeoman forwarded Mr. E’s response to 
the  applicant.    She  noted  that  under  the  Personnel  Manual,  members  are  supposed  to  submit 
retirement requests at least six months in advance of the requested retirement date, but CGPC 
had rushed approval upon receiving his request for an expedited retirement so that he could retire 
on his requested date of September 1, 2007.  She advised him to review Article 12.C.11.c. of the 
Personnel Manual to see if he could meet the requirements for delaying an approved retirement. 

 
On August 30, 2007, the Chief of Human Resources Operations approved the applicant’s 

appointment as a vessel traffic management specialist as of Sunday, August 19, 2007.   

The applicant’s final active duty Leave and Earnings Statement (LES), dated September 
24, 2007, shows that he had previously sold 60 days of leave during his career;2 took 24 days of 
leave from August 8 to 31, 2007; had 33 days of accumulated leave as of September 1, 2007; 
took no leave during September; and ended September with 0 days of leave. 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On May 20, 2008, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion adopting the findings and analysis provided in a memorandum on the case pre-
pared by the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC), in which CGPC recommended that the 
Board deny the applicant’s request. 

 
CGPC stated that on June 29, 2007, the applicant submitted a request to retire on Sep-
tember 1, 2007.  His request was favorably endorsed by his commanding officer on July 3, 2007.  
On July 27, 2007, the applicant raised the issue of his 57 days of accrued, unused annual leave 
with a yeoman.  On August 7, 2007, CGPC approved his request for retirement on September 1, 
2007, and issued his retirement orders.   

 
CGPC noted that under Article 12.C.11.a.5. of the Personnel Manual, enlisted members 
may request retirement no more than two years and no less than six months ahead of the desired 
retirement date.  However, an expedited request for retirement endorsed by the member’s com-
mand may be allowed based on the needs of the Service if the command will accept the gapped 
billet.  Once a retirement date has been approved, it may be canceled or delayed only under the 
criteria in Article 12.C.11.c.  In addition, CGPC noted that Article 12.C.1.d. specifies that termi-
nal leave is granted at the discretion of the normal leave-granting authority and that a member’s 
effective retirement date will not be delayed simply to allow him to use leave. 

 
CGPC stated that although the applicant claims that he was treated unfairly and deprived 
of the opportunity to take terminal leave, the “record does not reveal any error or injustice in the 
processing of his retirement.”  CGPC noted that the applicant requested to retire on September 1, 
2007, about two months before that date to accept a civilian position.  CGPC waived the six-
month  requirement  and  approved  his  request  on  August  7,  2007,  after  the  applicant  provided 
additional  necessary  information  in  that  his  command  agreed  to  accept  the  gap  that  would  be 
created in his active duty billet when he left before his replacement could arrive. 

 
CGPC noted that the applicant has not proved that his command ever refused to grant 
him leave.  Furthermore, CGPC argued, “given the short-fuse nature of his voluntary retirement 
request, it is unrealistic to expect to request retirement and immediately be placed in a terminal 
leave status as there are numerous administrative, medical, and other proce[dures] that correlate 
with a retirement.  The only indication of the Applicant requesting leave is his email of July 27, 
2007, to his yeoman indicating that he [had] two months of leave and would like to commence 
terminal leave.”  CGPC noted that the applicant has already sold the maximum amount of leave 
allowed (60 days) and that his own “leave management, short-fused voluntary retirement request, 
and previous sale of leave” caused his loss of 36 days of leave.  CGPC stated that it does not 
                                                 
2 Under 37 U.S.C. § 501 and Chapter 10.A.1. of the Pay Manual, each member may sell a maximum of 60 days of 
accrued, unused leave during his military career. 

delay approved retirement dates based solely on a member’s leave balance.  In addition, CGPC 
stated that the applicant’s next position as a civilian employee of the same command was “unre-
lated to the approval of [his] retirement request and/or leave usage.” 

 
CGPC argued that there was “no error or injustice with the applicant’s retirement proc-
essing.  The applicant’s choice of retirement date, high leave balance, and desire to pursue non-
military career opportunities resulted in his loss of leave.”  Therefore, CGPC recommended that 
no relief be granted in this case. 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On June 15, 2008, the applicant responded to the Coast Guard’s recommendation.  He 
stated that the advisory opinion does not acknowledge that the “losing command,” from which 
he retired, and the “gaining command,” into which he was hired were the same command—the 
MSU.  He reports to the same captain and retained his computer files and email address that he 
had on active duty.  The applicant stated that the civilian watchstanding position he accepted in 
the VTS Department had gone unfilled for two years, whereas two reservists on Title 10 orders 
“had been assigned my E-6 duties almost a year prior to my civilian ‘transfer.’”  The applicant 
stated that YNC L, his unit’s administrative officer, had applied for the same civilian position he 
was offered but he alleged no particular malfeasance.  He denied that anyone was at fault but 
claimed “the unfortunate circumstance that I couldn’t begin my request for retirement until the 
civilian side approved my hiring package.”  Therefore, he asked “admin” how to structure his 
transfer without losing leave because he had received no guidance from his command. 
 
 
The applicant argued that CGPC’s claim that his acceptance of a  civilian position was 
unrelated to the approval of his retirement request does not comport with the fact that the civilian 
position  was  “classified  as  an  in-house  hiring  and  not  advertised”  and  that  he  only  requested 
retirement to take the long-vacant watchstanding position, which the command badly needed to 
fill.  He argued that if he “had requested a month or two longer, the VTS watch section would 
have been the loser” instead of him.  The applicant complained that no one looked out for his 
interest. 
 

 

 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
 
Under Article 7.A.11. of the Personnel Manual,  members receive 2.5  calendar days of 
leave per month of continuous active duty (30 days per year).  Under Article 7.A.15.a., “[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 [which are unrelated to 
the applicant’s case]. The amount so reduced is irrevocably lost without compensation.” 
 

Article 12.C.10.a.1. of the Personnel Manual states that members with more than twenty 
years of active service may retire “on application and at the Commandant’s discretion” pursuant 
to  14  U.S.C.  §  355.    Article  12.C.4.a.  states  that  because  of  the  complexity  of  the  retirement 
process, members should attend a one- or two-day pre-retirement seminar to learn what to do.  
Article 12.C.11.a., entitled “Requests for Voluntary Retirements,” states the following: 

1. An enlisted member’s non-disability retirement occurs at the discretion of Commander (CGPC-
epm). Therefore, an enlisted member’s request will be considered on the basis of overall Service 
needs and the merits of each individual case. As a general rule, the provisions listed here govern; 
however, an enlisted member does not automatically accrue a vested right to retire when he or she 
chooses independently of Service needs merely by completing 20 years of active service. 
 
2.  An  enlisted  member  may  submit  a  request  for  voluntary  20-year  retirement  to  Commander 
(CGPC-epm-1) if the member: 

a. Has completed 18 years of active service, and 
b. Requests an effective date of retirement which provides: 

(1)  Completing  at  least  one  year  of  duty  at  current  duty  station  if  assigned 

INCONUS. … 

●  ●  ● 

5. Submit retirement requests to Commander (CGPC-epm-1) not more than two years or less than 
six months before the desired retirement date. Members desiring a retirement date sooner than 6 
months out, may so request; however, the request must be accompanied by a command endorse-
ment stating that the command can, and is willing to, support a vacant billet. Such requests will be 
approved  based  upon  Service  needs.  They  will  be  acknowledged  by  either  approval  or  disap-
proval. Include the following statements in all requests: 

From: Member 
To: Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC-epm-1) 
Thru: Commanding Officer, [Unit] 
Subj: RETIREMENT REQUEST 
Ref: (a) Personnel Manual, COMDTINST M1000.6 (series), Article 12.C.11. 
1.  I request retirement on the first day of [month, year], or as soon thereafter as possible. 
2.  I understand if this request is approved, I will no longer be eligible for advancement … 
3.  I understand if I request to cancel this retirement, Commander (CGPC-epm) will consider 
this request based solely on Service needs. If such cancellation is approved, it will not entitle 
me to reinstatement in the current Servicewide competition or on the existing eligibility list. … 
4.  I further understand that if I am being processed under the Physical Disability Evaluation 
System, my request for retirement could be terminated. 
5.  The zip code of my intended home of selection is _________. 
 
_____________________________ 
Member’s Signature 
 

7. Area, district, maintenance and logistics, and unit commanding officers will include the follow-
ing comments in endorsements to all retirement requests: 

a. Specific approval or disapproval of the basic request; if disapproval, the full reason for 

●  ●  ● 

disapproval. 

b. Whether the member meets the requirements listed in Article 12.C.11.a.2. 

 

 
 

 

Article 12.C.11.b.1. states that “[f]inal approval of a  retirement rests with Commander 
(CGPC-epm-1) who may specify an effective date later than that requested if, in the best interest 
of the Service, a delay is necessary to provide orderly relief or, in some cases, completion of the 
current  or  ordered  tour  of  duty.”    Article  12.C.1.b.  states  that  “Commander  (CGPC-epm)  or 
(CGPC-opm)  issues  orders  containing  the  effective  retirement  date,  the  laws  governing  the 
retirement, and travel authorization. Under 5 U.S.C. 8301, all non-disability retirements occur on 
the first day of a calendar month with the member usually detaching on the last day of the pre-

ceding  month.  If  the  member  detaches  earlier,  the  time  between  detachment  and  the  effective 
retirement date is charged as annual leave.”   

 
Article 12.C.1.d., entitled “Leave in Connection with Retirement,” states the following: 
 
1. At their discretion leave-granting authorities may grant earned or advance leave accompanying 
retirement orders under Chapter 7; however, the  member’s effective retirement date  will not be 
delayed for the specific purpose of allowing him or her to use earned leave. Relief for the retired 
member normally coincides with the scheduled retirement date, not the date the member departs 
on leave. 
2. If authorities grant leave in connection with retirement, complete the member’s records before 
he or she departs on leave, except for the final date entries, and endorse retirement orders to show 
the amount of leave granted. The retirement processing station subsequently completes all docu-
ments in the Service member’s official record on the effective retirement date and transmits the 
member’s copies of these documents to him or her. 

 

Article  12.C.11.c.,  entitled  “Canceling  or  Delaying  Retirement  Orders,”  states  the  fol-

lowing: 
 
1. The decision to submit a retirement memorandum is a serious one because the projected separa-
tion triggers transfer and advancement actions that, if reversed, cause hardship to other members. 
Therefore,  Commander  (CGPC-epm-1)  normally  will  not  honor  a  request  to  cancel  or delay  an 
already approved retirement date unless a specific Service need exists and only under these condi-
tions: 

a. A Service need exists. 
b.  A  member  has  a  hardship  situation  similar  or  equivalent  to  those  listed  in  Article 

12.D.3. The Service does not consider a change in civilian employment plans a hardship. 

c. The retirement physical examination finds the member “not fit for duty” and he or she 
requests in writing to cancel his or her Service retirement orders and processing for a physical dis-
ability retirement; or 

d. If during the retirement processing period, the member is diagnosed with serious dis-
eases or suffering from serious injuries not ratable by the Physical Disability Evaluation System 
nor disqualifying for separation, he or she may request to delay a non-mandatory retirement for a 
reasonable amount of time to address the problem. … 
2. In canceling a scheduled retirement, the member must agree to remain on active duty for two 
years from the date the request is approved and indicate this agreement in the basic cancellation 
request. … 
3.  Submit  a  request  to  cancel  or  delay  a  scheduled  retirement  at  least  three  months  before  the 
retirement date if at all possible. State the reasons for the request and submit it through the chain 
of command. 
 

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: 
 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552.  

The application was timely.  

 The  applicant  requested  an  oral  hearing  before  the  Board.    The  Chair,  acting 
pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.51, denied the request and recommended disposition of the case with-
out a hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommendation. 

1. 

 
2. 

The record shows that because of an opportunity for civilian employment with the 
Coast  Guard,  the  applicant  submitted  an  “Expedited  Retirement  Request”  on  June  29,  2007.  
Although under Article 12.C.11.a.5. of the Personnel Manual, retirement requests are supposed 
to be submitted at least six months before the requested date of retirement, the applicant asked to 
retire just two months before his requested retirement date of September 1, 2007.  At the time, he 
had approximately two months’ worth of unused annual leave, and he had already sold the maxi-
mum of 60 days of leave that a member may sell throughout his military career under 37 U.S.C. 
§ 501 and Chapter 10.A.1. of the Pay Manual.  Therefore, unless the Coast Guard erred or com-
mitted an injustice in retiring him on September 1, 2007, the applicant is not entitled to compen-
sation for the 36 days of annual leave he lost upon his retirement. 

In requesting the September 1st retirement date, the applicant clearly ignored his 
accumulated leave total.  He could have asked to be retired on October 1st or November 1st, in 
which case he could have begun his new civilian job and also been paid for two full months of 
terminal leave.3  However, there is no evidence in the record that the applicant raised the issue of 
his  accumulated  leave  until  July  27,  2007,  almost  a  month  after  he  submitted  his  retirement 
request and barely a month before his requested retirement date.  The applicant has not alleged, 
and there is no evidence indicating, that his choice of September 1st as a retirement date was rec-
ommended by a yeoman or other administrative officer with knowledge of his leave balance and 
leave sold.  The applicant’s email dated July 31, 2007, indicates that he had submitted his retire-
ment request without attending one of the Coast Guard’s pre-retirement informational seminars. 

The applicant’s email dated Friday, August 3, 2007—in which he asks if he needs 
to amend his requested retirement date so that he can be paid for all of his unused accrued leave 
—indicates that the applicant had just realized that he had made a mistake in asking to retire on 
September 1st instead of a month or two later.  Prior to that date, the applicant appears to have 
illogically believed that he could take leave after retiring.  On Monday, August 6, 2007, a Mili-
tary Pay Technician responded to his email, stating that he should submit his request through 
Customer Care.  There is no evidence in the record that the applicant actually submitted a request 
to amend his requested date of retirement before his retirement date was approved and the orders 
were issued on the morning of August 7, 2007.  Nor is it clear that such a last-minute request 
would have been approved.   

 
3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 
6. 

On  Tuesday  morning,  August  7,  2007,  CGPC  informed  the  applicant  that  his 
requested retirement date of September 1st had been approved and issued his retirement orders.  
That afternoon, YN1 H asked Mr. E if the orders could be amended by delaying his retirement 
date to allow the applicant to be paid for all of his unused accrued leave.  Mr. E advised YN1 H 
on  Wednesday  morning,  August  8,  2007,  that  the  applicant  could  seek  an  amendment  of  his 
retirement date and noted that, under Article 12.C.11.c. of the Personnel Manual, using up one’s 
accrued leave is not one of the valid reasons for delaying a retirement once a retirement date is 
approved.    The  Board  also  notes  that  Article  12.C.1.d.1.  expressly  states  that  a  member’s 
retirement date “will not be delayed for the specific purpose of allowing him or her to use earned 
                                                 
3  Under 5 U.S.C. § 5534a, members of the uniformed services who are on terminal leave pending retirement from 
active duty and who accept civilian employment with the federal Government are entitled to receive the pay of both 
positions “for the unexpired portion of the terminal leave.”  

leave.”  YN1 H forwarded Mr. E’s response to the applicant and advised him to review Article 
12.C.11.c. to see whether he could get his retirement date delayed.  There is no evidence in the 
record that the applicant ever requested a delay of his retirement orders under Article 12.C.11.c. 

In light of the above findings and evidence of record, the applicant has not proved 
by a preponderance of the evidence that the Coast Guard erred in refusing to delay his retirement 
date to October 1 or November 1, 2007, so that he would be entitled to compensation for the 36 
days of unused leave.  Instead, the record indicates that the applicant himself made a significant 
mistake  in  selecting  and  requesting  a  retirement  date  on  June  29,  2007,  without  having  con-
sidered his leave balance and before having consulted an administrative specialist about how to 
be paid for his unused leave while starting the civilian job. 

Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552, the Board must also consider whether the September 1st 
retirement date constitutes an injustice.  For purposes of the boards convened under 10 U.S.C. 
§ 1552, “injustice” is “treatment by military authorities that shocks the sense of justice, but is not 
technically illegal,” and the Board has authority to find injustice on a case by case basis.4  The 
applicant argues in part that his inability to take all two months of his accrued annual leave con-
stitutes an injustice because his hurry to submit a retirement request and to retire resulted from 
his desire to help his command by filling the vacant civilian position as soon as possible.  He 
argued, in essence, that he did his command and, thus, the Coast Guard a great favor by rushing 
to submit his retirement request without consulting a  yeoman to determine the best retirement 
date.  However, the Board is not persuaded that the applicant was denied a reasonable oppor-
tunity to consult a yeoman about his excess leave situation when selecting his retirement date in 
June 2007. 

 
7. 

 
8. 

 
9. 

The applicant also argues that he was prevented from taking all two months of his 
unused annual leave because he received poor advice and insufficient help from the administra-
tive officers he consulted.  However, there is no evidence that he raised the issue of his accrued 
unused  leave  balance  with  a  yeoman  until  July  27,  2007,  after  he  had  already  submitted  his 
retirement  request.    He  was  allowed  to  begin  terminal  leave  just  12  days  later,  on  August  8, 
2007, and took 24 days of leave from that date through August 31, 2007.  He began his civilian 
employment  while  on  terminal  leave.    The  Board  does  not  consider  this  to  be  “treatment  by 
military authorities that shocks the sense of justice,”5 even though the applicant ultimately lost 
36 days of unused leave because on June 29, 2007, he forgot to consider his accumulated leave 
balance in selecting a retirement date. 

 
10. 
  

 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 
 

                                                 
4 Reale v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 1010, 1011 (1976) (finding that); see Decisions of the Deputy General Counsel 
in BCMR Docket Nos. 2000-037, 2002-040. 
5 Id. 

The  application  of  BM1  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG  (Retired),  for  correction  of  his 

ORDER 

 

military record is denied.     

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

  

 
 
 Philip B. Busch 

 

 
 Kathryn Sinniger 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer