DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2008-187 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

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 August 15, 2008, upon receipt 
of  the  applicant’s  completed  application,  and  assigned  it  to  staff  member  J.  Andrews  to  pre-
pare 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  April  30,  2009,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant asked the Board to award him compensation for 9 days of accrued, unused 
leave.  The applicant stated that sometime prior to his retirement on November 1, 2007, he was 
advised that he would be able to sell 40.5 days of leave,1 so he submitted a request to be paid for 
40.5 days upon his retirement.2   However, on December 31, 2007, the Coast Guard Personnel 
Service Center (PSC) sent him a letter stating that he had been overpaid because on the date of 
his  retirement,  he  had  only  31.5  days  of  accrued,  unused  leave  to  sell.    Therefore,  the  Coast 
Guard recouped an overpayment of $1,411.47 from his bank account. 

 
The applicant explained that the reason he had only 31.5 days of leave to sell on October 
31, 2007, rather than 40.5 days, is because he lost 9 days of leave on September 30, 2007, the 
end of the prior fiscal year.  He lost that leave because the Coast Guard determined that as of 
September 30, 2007, he had accrued 69 days of leave, and under the Personnel Manual, members 
                                                 
1 Under Article 7.A.11.a. of the Personnel Manual, members earn 2.5 days of leave per month of continuous active 
duty.  Article 7.A.15.a. 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.”  Paragraphs b. through d. concern situations that might prevent 
members from using leave, such as national emergencies and long deployments at sea.  Under 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.  
Leave may be sold on any date the member is being discharged or retired from active duty.   
2 Members report their intention to sell leave on a “Career Intentions Worksheet,” form PSC-2045. 

may only carry over 60 days of accrued leave from one fiscal year to the next.  During the month 
of  October  2007,  he  was  credited  with  using  31  of  the  60  days  of  leave  he  carried  over  and 
accruing the usual 2.5 days, leaving him with 31.5 days of leave to sell upon retiring on Novem-
ber 1, 2007.  However, this calculation and attribution of leave were not what he had intended or 
been led to expect. 

 
The applicant explained that when planning his retirement, he received varying and erro-
neous advice from three different yeoman in June and July 2007.  The first, a YN2, told him that 
he could sell 60 days of leave and “use the maximum 15 days of processing point.”3  Within a 
week he received an email from the YN2 stating that he could only sell 51.5 days, but later that 
same day a YN1 sent him another email saying that he could sell 60 days of leave.  At a subse-
quent meeting with a YNCS, he asked them to “figure out how many days of leave I could sell 
back and keep my retirement ceremony date of August 23rd to coincide with the project meeting 
that would be taking place in Boston with my entire command of the RESCUE-21 project.”  At 
this meeting, the YNCS told him that he could not use any days of “processing point” because he 
was selling leave, which he later heard was not true.   

 
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.    Therefore,  prior  to  his  retirement,  he  believed  that  he  was  taking  terminal  leave  from 
Monday, August 27 through October 11, 2007; using 20 days of administrative absence from 
October 12 through October 31, 2007; and selling 40.5 days of accrued, unused leave on October 
31, 2007.  His command prepared his DD 214 to show that he had sold 40.5 days of leave. 

 
The applicant stated that when he received the letter about the overpayment from the PSC 
in January 2008, he quickly notified his command’s administrative office in Boston and was told 
that the matter would be resolved and that the recouped funds would be repaid.  After exchang-
ing many emails with the PSC, the administrative officers “took the low road” and claimed that 
he had returned to work at the end of October, even though everyone knew that he did not return 
to work.  In light of this “glaring misrepresentation” and the varying stories from Boston, the 
PSC advised him that he would have to apply to the BCMR to resolve the issue. 

 
The  applicant  stated  that  he  believes  that  “this  case  revolves  around  the  fact  that  ISC 
Boston PERSRU counseled [him] to use leave first and the 20 days of administrative absence at 
the end, thus not losing any leave. … [I]t is my understanding that there is no written policy that 
the  administrative  absence  must  be  used  prior  to  any  leave,  but  that  it is  common  practice  to 

                                                 
3 Under Article 12.C.1.e.1. of the Personnel Manual, a member whose selected home upon retirement is not near his 
last permanent duty station “may request Commander (CGPC-epm) or (CGPC-opm) to authorize (rather than direct) 
retirement  processing  at  a  shore  unit  convenient  to  his  or  her  designated  home  of  selection,  provided:  …  If 
approved, the member detaches in time to report to the processing station between 12 and 15 working days before 
the effective retirement date and the member’s orders shall be so endorsed.” 
4 Article 12.C.1.f.1. of the Personnel Manual states that “[u]nder the provisions of Article 7.A.10., retiring members 
are eligible for an administrative absence not to exceed 20 days (if separated INCONUS), or 30 days (if separated 
OCONUS), to facilitate relocation.  This administrative absence in conjunction with retirement is not an entitlement; 
however, it may be granted at the discretion of the member’s command provided it does not adversely affect mission 
performance.  This duty is intended for activities related to transition or relocation, e.g., job interviews, not to extend 
leave periods.” 

process the administrative absence first.  It appears it was this practice that caused me to be in 
excess of sixty days of leave on September 30th.”   In support of his allegations, the applicant 
submitted  a  calendar  showing  the  days  that  he  initially  requested  to  use  leave,  administrative 
absence, and processing point.  He also submitted a copy of the PSC’s letter dated December 31, 
2007, about the recoupment of the overpayment, and a copy of a Leave and Earnings Statement 
(LES).  The LES shows that he was “charged 31 days regular leave for period 01OCT07 to 31 
OCT07” and that he was originally paid for 40.5 days of leave but that this was corrected to 31.5 
days, resulting in an overpayment of $1,411.47.  In addition, the applicant submitted copies of 
the following emails: 

 

•  On June 29, 2007, a YN2 at the Integrated Services Center (ISC) in Boston, attached a 
copy of the Personnel Manual to her email and advised the applicant that the rules did not 
allow a member to “break the administrative absence up with liberty and leave.  We have 
to do it all in one lump.”  She told him that he could “take 35 days of leave and sell 51.5 
if you want to still use the [August 24th] start.”   
 

•  The applicant responded to the YN2’s email the same afternoon, saying that he believed 
that under Article 12.C.1.f.2. of the Personnel Manual, administrative absence could be 
taken in increments but, if not, he would take leave from August 27 to September 26, 
2007; administrative absence from September 27 through October 16, 2007; and “proc-
essing point” from October 17 through October 30, 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 work up for terminal leave, admin time and selling leave is as follows:  Terminal 
leave [from] August 27th to October 11th, total 46 days; Administrative absence [from] 

                                                 
5 Article 7.A.10.a.4. of the Personnel Manual states that administrative absences, not chargeable as leave, may be 
granted to [a]llow retiring and involuntarily separated members time to participate in pre-separation job search and 
house  hunting  activities  prior  to  separation.”    Article  7.A.10.b.11.  states  that  “[r]etiring  members  and  members 
separated  involuntarily  may  be  authorized  up  to  20  days  (if  separated  INCONUS),  or  30  days  (if  separated 
OCONUS), of administrative absence to conduct pre-separation job search and house hunting/relocation activities 
prior  to  the  effective  date  of  separation.  The  administrative  absence  can  be  taken  in  consecutive  days,  including 
weekends and  holidays; in increments, not  to exceed the authorized total based on the location of their last duty 
station; or, in connection with leave enroute to home with no intent to return to their last permanent duty station. 
This includes leave enroute to a retirement processing point.  [See] Article 12.C.1.d.”  Article 12.C.1.f.2. states the 
following regarding a member’s administrative absence prior to retirement: 
 

a. It may be authorized for consecutive days, including weekends and holidays. 
b. It may be taken in increments, not to exceed the totals dictated in Article 12.C.1.f.1. 
c. Liberty or a period of combined leave and liberty is not authorized between consecutive periods 
of administrative absence in conjunction with retirement. 
d. It may be used in conjunction with leave enroute to home, with no intent to return to the last 
permanent  duty  station,  including  leave  enroute  to  a  retirement  processing  point  as  defined  in 
Article 12.C.1.d. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

October 12th to October 31st, total 20 days; Sell remainder of leave balance, 40.5 days.  
Please let me know if this all works out.” 

•  On January 23, 2008, a supervisor at the PSC advised the applicant in an email that to 
avoid  the  recoupment  of  the  overpayment,  he  would  have  to  request  a  waiver  through 
CG-122 of the rule that limited the carry-over of leave between fiscal years to 60 days.  
The  PSC  supervisor  stated  that  the  adjustment  would  be  made  if  the  waiver  was 
approved.  The applicant forwarded this email to the YN1 at ISC Boston the same day. 

•  On April 10, 2008, the applicant advised the YN1 in an email that the PSC had not yet 
adjusted the recoupment from his retired pay and asked him to follow up to make sure 
they were “on the right track to correct it.” 

•  On May 5, 2008, the applicant “touched base” with the YN1 in an email stating that the 

PSC had not yet adjusted the recoupment. 

•  On June 6, 2008, a chief warrant officer (CWO W) at ISC Boston sent another chief war-
rant officer (CWO S) at the PSC, who was an Authorized Certifying Officer (ACO) an 
email saying that the applicant “ended up being 9 days excess leave.  Come to find out, 
he changed his leave and the unit didn’t notify us.  After the unit notified us, we went and 
made  the  corrections  to  his  leave.    Since  then  global  pay  or  something  has  made  his 
account inaccessible to us. … The member’s being real patient about it, but at this point 
I’m frustrated.  We owe him 9 days and ISC Boston feels like we’ve done everything we 
can to get him paid.”  In response, the ACO asked about the actual dates of leave. 

• 

 On June 9, 2008, the YN1 advised the ACO that “[t]he leave dates that should have been 
charged  as  retirement  term  leave  was  9/25/2007  to  10/31/2007  (37  days).”    The  ACO 
replied the same day stating the following: 

Based on new terminal leave dates, it appears to me that either the member miscalculated, or the 
SPO YN miscalculated member’s leave balance, and forgot to figure that 9.0 days would be lost at 
the end of the [fiscal year].  No further pay or administrative action is required.  ETCS was never 
excess leave.  His final entitlement was 31.5 days of LV SOLD on 10/31/2007 and it was proper. 
 
Being that Retirees are paid their final paycheck automatically by JUMPS which is calculated by 
the submission of the electronic SOI and SPO Separation transaction asking for 40.5 LV SOLD, 
member’s final paycheck was produced selling 40.5 days of LV SOLD, along with final pay and 
allowances.  When the system recalculated member’s leave in October due to Fiscal Year leave 
accounting requirements to drop to 60.0 days at end of September, this member lost 9.0 days of 
leave at the end of month September.  It doesn’t matter that the member claims and it’s been veri-
fied that he started terminal leave on 9/25 vice 9/16.  On September 30, this member’s leave bal-
ance dropped to 60.0.  The recent leave change now results in member losing 18.0 days of leave 
vice 9.0 previously recorded. 

The ACO included in his email a table of the applicant’s leave prior to his retirement in 
2007, which shows the following: 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Month 
May 
June 
July 
Aug. 
Sep. 
Oct. 

 
Leave Used 

Leave 
Accrued 
+ 2.5 days 
+ 2.5 days 
+ 2.5 days 
+ 2.5 days 
+ 2.5 days 
9/25 – 9/30 
+ 2.5 days  10/1 – 10/31 

none 
none 
none 
none 

Leave Balance on 
Last Day of Month 

74.0 days 
76.5 days 
79.0 days 
81.5 days 
60.0 days 
31.5 days 

 
Note 
 
 
 
 
Member lost 18.0 days vice 9.0 
Member paid for 31.5 days of leave 

 

•  On June 9, 2008, CWO W sent the ACO an email saying that the YN1 “was wrong” and 
had reported the dates of the applicant’s leave inaccurately.  “What [the applicant] did 
was not terminal leave.  His leave was from 9.16/07 thru 10/22/07 (a total of 37 days).  
He returned to his unit on 10/23//07.  We’ve got it right this time.  Sorry for the bum 
scoop.” 

 
•  On June 12, 2008, the ACO responded to CWO W, saying “Wrong again!  No action 
required from SES.  I’m not sure what you mean by saying you’re frustrated and that ISC 
Boston  has  done  everything  possible  to  get  this  guy  paid  but  in  less  than  24  hours,  I 
obtained  documentation  that  this leave  change  did  not  occur,  and  in  fact,  this member 
was on leave from 9/16/07 – 10/31/07 and the overpayment is valid.” 

•  On  June  16,  2008,  CWO  W  replied,  stating  that  he  did  not  know  “who  validated  the 
[applicant’s] ‘Terminal Leave,’ but here is the email string and the actual calendar that 
we used to discuss his retirement absence.  As you can see it was set up as leave, then 
administrative absence.  This was the only way to do it to avoid the member losing leave.  
The unit may think that it was terminal leave, but we are the Admin for this member.  We 
discussed it and set it up properly.  Then we charged it incorrectly at the SPO.  We have 
been trying since January to correct.  That’s the frustrating part.  Please correct the leave 
and remove the overpayment.” 

•  The ACO replied to CWO W and the applicant as well the same day, stating the follow-

ing: 

Please understand that as an Authorized Certifying Officer, I am liable for any payment I generate, 
or any overpayment I cancel.  At this point, the leave periods keep changing.  (5 times in the past 
week.)  I recommend that if you feel you have received a “wrong” from the Coast Guard, your 
option is to submit a BCMR review.  Here is a summary of what I see in Direct Access, and what 
I’ve been recently provided thru email from the unit, Boston Admin, and Boston SPO.  I’m sure 
you  will  agree  that  as  an  ACO  with  ultimate  liability,  why  I’m  not  comfortable  cancelling  the 
overpayment.  I believe a BCMR is the proper avenue to take at this point. 
 
Oct. 31, 2007:  Retirement orders state annual leave from 9/16 – 10/31. 
June 6, 2008:  Email from Boston Admin states member was 9 days excess leave. 
June 6, 2008:  PSC email back to Boston Admin/SPO requests to know actual leave dates. 
June 7, 2008:  Boston SPO states leave was from 9/25 – 10/31. 
June 9, 2008:  PSC email states amended leave dates received from SPO does not remove over-

payment and result in no further action.  The overpayment stands. 

June  9,  2008:    Boston  Admin  email  states  Boston  SPO  was  wrong,  and  that  actual  leave  dates 

were 9/16 – 10/22.  And that they’ve got it right this time. 

June 11, 2008:  PSC queries Unit XO in an attempt to confirm leave dates which is standard prac-
tice  in  disputes.    Unit  XO  advises  they  contacted  R21,  and  indicates  member  was  on 
leave from 9/16 – 10/31. 

June 12, 2008:  PSC email to Boston SPO and Admin advises PSC obtained confirmation with 
unit that leave was from 9/16 – 10/31.  That no action is required and the overpayment 
stands. 

June 16, 2008:  Boston submits PDF file to document each day of absence from 8/24 thru 10/31 
with an annotated calendar that outlines status on each day after retirement ceremony on 
8/23.  Calendar includes leave, admin absence, and processing point days.  Calendar pro-
vided indicates the following chargeable leave dates. 

8/24 – 9/10  18 days 
9/17 – 9/17  1 day 
9/24 – 9/24  1 day 
10/1 – 10/1  1 day 
10/22 – 10/22  1 day 
10/15 – 10/16  2 days 

June 16, 2008:  Boston Admin sends follow-up email stating new amended leave dates are 8/27 – 

10/11.  This email contradicts the PDF file, and the previous emails on June 9. 

June 16, 2008:  ACO decision made to take no action, and refer member to BCMR for review and 

final decision. 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On January 12, 2009, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 

an advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny the applicant’s request. 

 
The JAG stated that at the beginning of fiscal year 2008, the applicant’s leave balance 
was  properly  adjusted  from  69  to  60;  he  was  authorized  30  days  of  leave  in  October;  earned 
another 2.5 days of leave; and ended October with a leave balance of 31.5 days.6  Because he 
was paid for 40.5 days of leave in his final paycheck, the PSC properly recouped the overpay-
ment for 9 days of leave that the applicant did not have on October 31, 2007.   

 
The JAG argued that “the only question presented here is whether Commanding Officer, 
PSC Topeka, KS abused his discretion in his attempt to collect a debt from the Applicant based 
on  his  over  paid  status.”    The  JAG  concluded  that  the  applicant  had  failed  to  prove  that  the 
Command Officer, PSC abused his discretion in recouping the overpayment. 

 
The JAG stated that both federal law and Coast Guard policy do not allow members to 
carry over more than 60 days of leave into a new fiscal year.  He alleged that as a retiring senior 
chief petty officer, the applicant “knew or should have known” about this policy and scheduled 
his retirement plans accordingly.  He also stated that upon notification of the overpayment, the 
applicant  should  have  submitted  a  request  for  a  waiver7  of  the  debt  if  he  believed  he  was 
miscounseled by his SPO. 
                                                 
6 The Board notes that to end October with a leave balance of 31.5 days, the applicant must have taken leave for all 
31 days of October, not just the 30 days stated by the JAG. 
7 Chapter 11.F. of the Pay Manual states that a member or former member may submit a written request “for the 
cancellation  of  an  indebtedness  to  the  U.S.  Government  which  resulted  from  erroneous  payments  of  pay  and 
allowances made to or on behalf of the member or former member. … 10 USC 2774 gives the Secretary of Depart-
ment of Homeland Security authority to effect waiver of claims for erroneous payments of pay and allowances and 
travel and transportation allowances, when collection of the claim would be against equity and good conscience, and 

 
The JAG claimed that the applicant’s assertion that he was miscounseled about “whether 
he should used administrative absence then earned leave carries no weight.”  The JAG alleged 
that regardless of which type of leave the applicant claims he should have used first, he had 69 
days of leave on September 30, 2007, which was by law reduced to 60 days on October 1, 2007. 

 
The JAG attached to his advisory opinion an email from the ACO at the PSC, who rec-

ommended that no relief be granted.  The ACO stated the following in pertinent part: 

 
[The applicant] departed his unit on August 27th using 20 days of non-chargeable Administrative 
Absence.    The  member  was  then  charged  for  47  days  of  terminal  leave.    It  appears  either  the 
member or the Servicing Personnel Officer, or both, failed to realize the member’s leave account 
would be reduced to 60 days on 1 Oct. 2007. 
 
In June 2008, the member and the Servicing Personnel Office contacted PSC Topeka and disputed 
the overpayment, stating if they reversed the order of charging the Administrative Absence and the 
terminal leave, the member would not have lost 9.0 days at the end of the FY and would then be 
entitled  to  sell  40.5  days.    In  June  2008,  the  ACO  at  PSC  Topeka  correctly  determined  Coast 
Guard policy in effect in July 2007 was to charge delay enroute to retirement as follows:[8] 
 
1)  20 days non-chargeable administrative absence for house-hunting/job searching. 
2)  Leave in conjunction with retirement. 
3)  Retirement processing point if authorized.  (Up to 15 working days non-chargeable days to 
finalize retirement paperwork. 
 

                                                                                                                                                             
not in the best interest of the United States. The authority of the Secretary has been delegated to Commandant (CG-
122)  [the  Office  of  Military  Personnel].”    Paragraph  3  limits  such  waivers  to  overpayments  not  exceeding 
$10,000.00.  Paragraph 5 provides the following conditions for determining waiver requests: 
 

a. Claims for erroneous payments which may be waived in whole or in part, must have resulted 
from an erroneous overpayment. 
b.  The  erroneous  payment  must  not  be  the  subject  of  an  exception  made  by  the  Comptroller 
General in the account of any accountable official, or which has been transmitted to the General 
Accounting Office (GAO) for collection, or to the Attorney General for litigation. 
c. Erroneous payments of pay and allowances, and travel and transportation allowances may be 
considered  for  waiver  action  provided  the  application  is  received  by  the  Coast  Guard  or  the 
General  Accounting  Office  within  a  three  year  period  following  date  of  discovery  of  the  error 
which caused the erroneous payment. 
d. Erroneous payments that have been wholly or partially recovered must be considered for waiver 
in the gross amount. 
e. Overpayments must be of such a nature that they would normally go unnoticed or undetected by 
the member. 
f. Collection action under the claim would be against equity and good conscience and not in the 
best  interests  of  the  United  States.  Generally,  this  criteria  will  be  met  by  a  finding  that  the 
erroneous payment occurred through administrative error and that there is no indication of fraud, 
misrepresentation,  fault,  or  lack  of  good  faith  on  the  part  of  the  member  or  any  other  person 
having an interest in obtaining waiver of the claim. Any significant, unexplained increase in pay 
and allowances which would require a reasonable person to inquire concerning the correctness of 
the  pay  or  allowances,  ordinarily  would  preclude  a  waiver  when  the  member  fails  to  bring  the 
matter to the attention of appropriate officials. 

8 ALCOAST 293/08, issued in late 2008 after the applicant’s retirement, states in paragraph 5 that “[f]or clarifica-
tion and to avoid confusion, a retiring member’s absences will be accounted for in this order: AA, time at processing 
point if authorized, and leave.” 

[The applicant] was not authorized a Retirement Processing Point in conjunction with retirement.  
Therefore,  member  was  properly  charged  for  his  20  days  administrative  absence  first,  and  then 
charged for 47 days’ leave from 9/15 – 10/31.  The leave dates were also confirmed thru follow up 
with the unit XO that [the applicant] did not return to his unit early and remained on leave thru 
Oct. 31st. 
 
In  support  of  the  contention  about  the  order  in which  administrative  absence,  terminal 
leave, and processing point were to be taken, the JAG submitted a copy of a “Career Intentions 
Worksheet”  form,  which  is  used  to  document  a  member’s  intentions  whenever  they  need  to 
reenlist or are separating or retiring from active duty.  Block 28 of this form requires the member 
to indicate whether he has been authorized to use a retirement processing point by the Personnel 
Command in accordance with Article 12.C.1.e. of the Personnel Manual and whether his own 
command  has  approved  his  request  for  20  days  of  permissive  temporary  duty  (administrative 
absence) under Article 10.C.1.f..  It further counsels the member to “[u]se in the following order:  
20  days  permissive  temporary  duty,  terminal  leave,  and  processing  point  permissive  orders.  
Contact  your  admin  office  for  assistance  in  determining  your  departure  date  when  using  any 
combination of the above.  Block 28 contains a chart wherein members are to enter first their 
dates  of  permissive  temporary  duty  (administrative  absence);  second  their  dates  of  terminal 
leave; and third their dates at the retirement processing point.  The form is to be signed by the 
member, his supervisor, his division or branch chief, his department head, the command, and the 
servicing personnel officer (SPO). 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  February  4,  2009,  the  applicant  responded  to  the  Coast  Guard’s  recommendation.  
With regard to the JAG’s statement that the applicant should have known that he would only be 
able to carry 60 days of leave into the new fiscal year, the applicant strongly disagreed, noting 
that his specialty is electronics, and the yeomen he consulted are supposed to be the administra-
tive experts.  He stated that his emails with his unit’s yeomen show that they advised him that he 
could take his administrative absence after taking terminal leave, rather than before. 
 
 
The applicant pointed out that despite the order listed on the Career Intentions Worksheet 
form, the Personnel Manual does not require a retiring member’s time away from work to be 
attributed  to  administrative  absence  before  it  is  attributed  to  leave.    In  addition,  the  applicant 
alleged  that  the  PSC  never  advised  him  to  seek  a  waiver  of  the  recoupment.    Instead,  they 
advised him to submit an application to the BCMR.  The applicant concluded that he had trusted 
the yeoman in good faith to advise him properly.  He stated that he is “not looking for anything 
that [he’s] not entitled to but [feels he] was done an injustice that resulted in money being taken 
out of [his] retirement account at a time that created a financial burden” on his family. 
 
 
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted copies of more email messages.  In 
one, dated June 1, 2007, the YN1 advises the applicant that he could take terminal leave from 
July 3 to September 26, 2007; administrative absence from September 27 to October 16, 2007; 
and processing point from October 17 to 31, 2007.  The applicant responded on June 7, 2007, 
stating that he “would like August 23rd to be my last day (date of retirement ceremony) if not 
possible the following Monday the 27th.”  On June 26, 2007, a yeoman at ISC Boston advised 
him to come to the office for a consultation and to “start your retirement paperwork.” 

 

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.  

1. 

 
2. 

 
3. 

Under  33  C.F.R.  §  52.13(b),  an  applicant  must  have  “exhausted  all  effective 
administrative remedies” before applying to the Board for relief.  The JAG pointed out that the 
applicant never applied for a waiver of his debt as allowed under Chapter 11.F. of the Pay Man-
ual, but did not argue that the applicant had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and 
instead  recommended  denial.    There  is  no  evidence  in  the  record  that  the  JAG  consulted  the 
Office  of  Military  Personnel  (CG-122),  which  has  authority  to  grant  waivers  of  indebtedness 
under Chapter 11.F. of the Pay Manual.  Instead, the JAG apparently relied on the opinion of an 
ACO at the PSC, who did not have authority to grant or deny waivers under Chapter 11.F. and 
who was clearly upset with the inconsistent information he was receiving about the applicant’s 
leave from various administrative officials in Boston.  Because there is no evidence that CG-122 
has  ever  been  consulted  in  this  matter,  the  Board  is  not  convinced  that  a  proper  request  for 
waiver by the applicant would necessarily be futile.  Moreover, under Chapter 11.F.5.c., a former 
member  may  request  a  waiver  “within  a  three-year  period  following  date  of  discovery  of  the 
error which caused the erroneous payment.”  Since the applicant learned of the overpayment in 
January 2008, the Board is not persuaded that the applicant has exhausted all potentially effec-
tive administrative remedies. 

Given the applicant’s email dated July 19, 2007, and the fact that his SPO appar-
ently reviewed his request to sell 40.5 days of leave and forwarded it to the PSC as accurate, the 
applicant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that in July 2007 his local SPO led him 
to believe that he could attribute his absence from the office from August 27 through October 31, 
2007, first to 46 days of accrued leave (August 27 – October 11) and then to 20 days of adminis-
trative  absence  (October  12  –  31)  so  that  he  would  have  40.5  days  of  leave  to  sell  upon  his 
retirement.  This advice was erroneous because it was contrary to the policy shown on the Career 
Intentions Worksheet, which counsels the member to “[u]se in the following order:  20 days per-
missive temporary duty [administrative absence], terminal leave, and processing point permis-
sive orders.”  The Board notes that the applicant began the month of August 2007 with 79 days 
of accrued, unused leave.  Therefore, if he had been allowed to take his days of leave before his 
days of administrative absence, he would have had 40.5 days of leave to sell upon his retirement, 
as shown in the table below. 

 

 

Month 
Aug. 
Sep. 
Oct. 

Leave Balance at 
Start of Month 

79 days 
76.5 days 
49.0 days 

Leave 
Accrued 
+ 2.5 days 
+ 2.5 days 
+ 2.5 days 

 

Leave 

Leave Balance on 
Last Day of Month 

5 days of leave (Aug. 27 – 31) 
30 days of leave (Sep. 1 – 30) 
11 days of leave (Oct. 1 – 11)       
(20 days of Adm. Abs., Oct. 11 – 31) 

76.5 days 
49.0 days 
40.5 days 

Although not stated in either the Personnel Manual or the Pay Manual, the Career 
Intentions  Worksheet  shows  that,  by  policy,  a  retiring  member’s  absence  from  work  is  first 
attributed to administrative absence and then to accrued leave.  The Career Intentions Worksheet 
is the form retiring members complete to indicate their intention to sell accrued, unused leave 
and to take terminal leave and, if granted, administrative absence and “processing point” time.  
Under  Article 12.C.1. of the Personnel Manual,  neither  administrative absence nor processing 
point is an entitlement.  The record indicates that the applicant was granted 20 days of adminis-
trative  absence  by  his  command,  but  he  was  not  granted  processing  point  by  the  Personnel 
Command.  Therefore, if the applicant had been properly counseled by his SPO in July 2007, he 
would have been advised that, because he was scheduling his retirement ceremony for Thursday, 
August 23, 2007, and planned to be absent from work from Monday, August 27, 2007, through 
his retirement on November 1, 2007, he would be able to sell only 31.5 days of leave, as shown 
in the table below. 

 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 
6. 

 

Month 
Aug. 

Leave Balance at 
Start of Month 

79 days 

Leave 
Accrued 
+ 2.5 days 

 

Leave Used 

Leave Balance on 
Last Day of Month 

No leave                                                 
81.5 days 

(5 days of Adm. Abs., Aug. 27 - 31) 

Sep. 

Oct. 

81.5 days 

+ 2.5 days 

15 days of leave (Sep. 16 – 30)                  

(15 days of Adm. Abs., Sep. 1 – 15) 

69.0 days (reduced 
to 60.0 by new FY) 

60.0 days 

+ 2.5 days 

31 days of leave (Oct. 1 – 31) 

31.5 days 

The record shows that in his final pay deposit, the applicant was paid for the 40.5 
days of leave sold he had requested, but that in December 2007, the PSC detected the error and 
informed him that the overpayment for 9 days of leave would be recouped.  Although he was 
advised by a supervisor of the PSC on January 23, 2008, to request a waiver, subsequent emails 
in the record indicate that administrative officials in the  ISC in Boston told the applicant that 
they  would  fix  the  problem  and  reverse  the  recoupment  without  any  waiver.    The  $1,411.47 
overpayment  was  recouped,  however,  and  so  the  applicant  asks  the  Board  to  order  the  Coast 
Guard to repay him this sum because he was improperly counseled by his SPO in July 2007. 

Had the SPO properly counseled the applicant in response to the email dated July 
19, 2007, it is not clear how the applicant could have been paid for 40.5 days of leave upon his 
retirement,  instead  of  31.5  days,  without  major  changes  in  his  plans.    His  retirement  date  of 
November 1, 2007, had already been approved, and under Article 12.C.1.d.1. of the Personnel 
Manual,  approved  retirement  dates  may  not  be  changed  for  the  purpose  of  scheduling  leave.  
Theoretically, the applicant could have chosen to work throughout October 2007 so as not to lose 
31 of the 60 days of leave he was legally allowed to carry over from the last fiscal year, but his 
clearly stated desire was to hold his retirement ceremony on August 23, 2007, when his entire 
command would be present for a meeting about the RESCUE-21 project, and to never return to 
work after that date.  However, if he had known he would lose 9 days of leave with the advent of 
the new fiscal year, he might have requested and been granted 9 days of leave in late July or 
early August 2007, prior to his retirement ceremony.  This action would have stopped him from 
losing 9 days of leave with the start of the new fiscal year, but it would not have resulted in any 
payment for those 9 days of leave.  Under the regulations, the applicant could have no more than 

60 days of  accrued leave as of  October 1,  2007, and he  could not  retain 40.5 days to sell on 
October 31, 2007, without returning to work during October.  

The recoupment of the overpayment was not legal error, but potential equitable 
remedies  exist  under  both  Chapter  11.F.  of  the  Pay  Manual  and  under  the  Board’s  statute,  
10 U.S.C. § 1552(a).  Chapter 11.F.5.f. states that CG-122 may grant a waiver of indebtedness 
resulting from overpayments in cases in which  

 
[c]ollection action under the claim would be against equity and good conscience and not in the 
best interests of the United States. Generally, this criteria will be met by a finding that the erro-
neous  payment  occurred  through  administrative  error  and  that  there  is  no  indication  of  fraud, 
misrepresentation,  fault,  or  lack  of  good  faith  on  the  part  of  the  member  or  any  other  person 
having an interest in obtaining waiver of the claim. Any significant, unexplained increase in pay 
and allowances which would require a reasonable person to inquire concerning the correctness 
of the pay or allowances, ordinarily would preclude a waiver when the member fails to bring the 
matter to the attention of appropriate officials. 
 

 
7. 

 
8. 

It appears to the Board that the applicant may be eligible for a waiver from CG-122 under this 
provision because the overpayment resulted from his SPO’s administrative error, and there is no 
indication of fraud, misrepresentation, fault, or lack of good faith on the part of the applicant.  
With regard to the latter requirement, the Board notes that it was the applicant’s administrative 
officers, and not the applicant himself, who provided the PSC with more than one story about his 
terminal leave in their efforts to protect the applicant from the consequences of their own bad 
advice.  In addition, because the applicant had been led to believe he was entitled to sell 40.5 
days  of  leave,  he  had  no  reason  to  suspect  when  he  received  his  final  active  duty  pay  that 
$1,411.47 of the lump sum for leave sold was an overpayment. 

Therefore, because there is no evidence in the record that CG-122, which has 
authority to waive a retired member’s indebtedness, has ever been consulted in this matter and 
because the applicant may be eligible for a waiver from CG-122 under the criteria stated in 
Chapter  11.F.5.f.  of  the  Pay  Manual,  the  applicant’s  request  should  be  dismissed  without 
prejudice  so  that  he  can  exhaust  his  administrative  remedies  by  requesting  a  waiver  of  the 
indebtedness from CG-122.  If CG-122 denies his request for a waiver, he can resubmit his 
application to this Board. 

 
  

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 
 

The application of ETCS xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG (Retired), for correction 

of his military record is denied without prejudice for the reasons stated in the findings. 

 

ORDER 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 
 
 Paul B. Oman 

 

 

 
 
 Thomas H. Van Horn  

 

 

 
 
 Janice Williams-Jones