DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2009-120 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 

 

 
 

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  application  upon  receipt  of  the 
applicant’s completed application March 27, 2009, and subsequently prepared the final 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 December 4, 2009, is approved and signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT'S REQUEST 

 

 
The  applicant  requested  a  “pay  and  leave  adjustment  .  .  .  to  correct  erroneous 
overpayment issues from May 9, 2006 to June 6, 2006 while [she] was in an active duty status.”  
She asserted that she was not in a leave status for this entire period.   
 
 
The  applicant  is  a  reservist  currently  on  the  inactive  status  list  (ISL).    She  was 
involuntarily ordered to active duty for a period from October 1, 2003, through September 30, 
2004.  She continued on active duty through an extended active duty (EAD) agreement for the 
period from October 1, 2004, through June 6, 2006.  The applicant subsequently received Active 
Duty Special Work (ADSW) orders for the period from June 7, 2006, to September 30, 2006.  
On June 13, 2006, the Integrated Support Command canceled the ADSW orders retroactive to 
June 7, 2006, because of the applicant’s non-compliance with weight standards.  The applicant 
was  released  from  active  duty  and  received  a  DD  214  that  shows  she  entered  active  duty  on 
October 1, 2004 and was released from active duty on June 6, 2006.   
 
 
On November 7, 2006, the applicant received a letter from the Personnel Service Center 
informing  her  that  she  had  been  overpaid  by  $1,054.57  due  to  excess  leave.1    The  letter 
explained the following: 

                                                 
1 Article 7.A.2.d. of the Personnel Manual states that excess leave is authorized leave over and beyond any earned 
or advance that can be granted during which the member is not entitled to pay and/or allowances.  A minus leave 

 

1.  A review of your leave account shows you used 12.0 days of leave in excess of 
what you earned while serving on active duty.  The inclusive dates of excess leave 
taken are May 26 through June 6, 2006.  For the 12.0 days excess leave used 1.0 
day non-accrued leave was incurred for a total charge of 13.0 days excess leave.  
This resulted in an overpayment of $2,053.16 because you did not earn leave and 
were not entitled to pay or allowances while in an excess leave status. 
 
2.  [Nine hundred ninety-eight dollars and fifty-nine cents] pay and allowances 
due you upon discharge were used to partially offset the [amount owed].  Amount 
now due government:  $1,054.57. 

 
 
The applicant stated that she was not certain how much leave she actually took prior to 
May 26, 2006, but she was certain she did not take leave from May 9, 2006 to May 31, 2006, to 
June  6,  2006,  as  calculated.    The  applicant  indicated  there  was  confusion  about  her  leave 
balance.  She stated that a yeoman told her that she would have 17 days of leave in June.  She 
stated that she started leave on May 26, 2006 and her title 10 orders ended on June 6, 2006.  She 
stated  that  this  period  covered  12  days  of  leave  and  that  using  the  yeoman’s  calculation  she 
should have had 5 days remaining.  She denied that she was in a leave status for the entire period 
from May 9, 2006 to May 31, 2006.  In this regard she submitted a statement from a civilian 
contractor who stated that the applicant assisted with a Morale, Welfare, and Recreation picnic 
on May 25, 2006.   
 
 
Prior  to  filing  with  the  Board,  the  applicant  filed  an  application  for  correction  of  her 
record with the Personnel Records Review Board (PRRB) in which she asked that her records be 
corrected to show that she served on active duty from October 1, 2003 to June 6, 2006 instead of 
October 1, 2004 to June 6, 2006.  The PRRB issued the following recommendation for correction 
of the applicant’s record, which was approved on April 6, 2007: 
 

a. Date entered active duty this period should read 2003/10/01 vice 2004/10/01.  
Applicant began involuntary Title 10 on 2003/10/01 and was on continuous active 
duty until RELAD.  Block 12.b. Separation this period [of the DD-214]  should 
read 2006/06/13 the actual day the applicant was instructed that the ADSW-AC 
orders  for  period  2006/06/07  were  cancelled  vice  the  retroactive  date  of 
2006/06/06 indicated on the existing DD-214. Block 12.c. Net Active Service this 
period needs [to be computed] based upon adjusted date entered [active duty]. 
 
b. Recommend Coast Guard Personnel Service Center . . .  audit applicant’s pay 
record to ensure applicant is credited with all pay and allowances through revised 
separation date of 2006/06/13 vice 2006/06/06 of record. 
   
 
The applicant submitted a leave and earning statement for the period March 1 through 
March 31, 2007 with an amendment dated April 12, 2007, that shows that she was credited with  
                                                                                                                                                             
balance at the time of discharge, first extension of an enlistment, separation from active duty, desertion, or death is 
considered as excess leave without regard to the authority under which the leave resulting in a minus balance was 
granted.   

8 additional days of active duty, which appears to have  resulted from the PRRB’s directive that 
her  separation  date  be  corrected  to  June  13,  2006.    The  amendment  further  shows  after  the 
correction  granting 8 additional days of  active duty, that the applicant’s  outstanding debt was 
reduced to zero.  
   

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 On March 3, 2003, the BCMR received the views of the Coast Guard from the Judge 
 
Advocate  General (JAG) of the Coast Guard, who adopted the  comments of the Commander, 
Personnel Service Center (PSC), as the advisory opinion. 
 
 
PSC  recommended  that  the  Board  deny  the  applicant’s  request.    PSC  stated  that  the 
applicant failed to prove that she did not take the leave as indicated in her record.  With respect 
to the applicant’s argument that she assisted with a picnic on May 25, 2006, and therefore was 
not in a leave status for the entire period, PSC stated that the mere assistance/attendance with a 
morale function does not substantiate that the applicant was not on leave as morale events were 
not her official government duties.    PSC further stated that a review of the applicant’s leave 
status by the Pay and Personnel Center does not reveal any error or discrepancies.  PSC stated 
that as a result of the applicant taking more leave than the amount she had accrued, she received 
a notice of overpayment.   
 

APPLICANT REPLY TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On August 21, 2009, the Board sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast Guard 

 
 
for a response.  The Board did not receive a reply to the views of the Coast Guard. 
 

 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

1.  The  BCMR  has  jurisdiction  of  the  case  pursuant  to  section  1552  of  title  10  of  the 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant's 

 
 
military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission, and applicable law: 
 
  
United States Code.  The application is timely.   
 
 
2.  The applicant claimed that she was not in a leave status for the entire period from May 
9, 2006 to June 6, 2007.  The only evidence she submitted in this regard is that she assisted with 
a  Morale,  Welfare,  and  Recreation  picnic  on  May  25,  2006;  that  confusion  existed  about  her 
leave balance; and that after she reported for duty, her ADSW-AC orders were cancelled on June 
13,  2006,  retroactive  to  June  7,  2006.    However,  on  April  6,  2007,  the  PRRB  ordered  the 
applicant’s record corrected to show that she separated from active duty on June 13, 2006 rather 
than June 6, 2006, which granted the applicant an additional 8 days of active duty with pay and 
allowances.  The April 2007 amendment to the March 2007 leave and earnings statement shows 
that  the  8  days  of  additional  active  duty  pay  canceled  the  excess  leave  charges  and  left  the 
applicant owing no government debt.   
 

 
3.  On the issue of whether the applicant is still owed for unused leave, the Board notes 
that she presented no evidence that she had unused leave days upon her separation from active 
duty.  She asserted that she was told by a yeoman that she had 17 days of leave in June 2006 but 
she also stated that she did not remember how many days of leave she had used prior to May 26, 
2006.    It  is  the  applicant’s  responsibility  to  prove  that  she  had  unused  leave  days  when  she 
separated from active duty or that after being credited with 8 additional days of active duty, as 
directed  by  the  PRRB,  she  is  owed  leave.    The  Board  finds  this  could  have  been  done  by 
gathering all of her leave and earnings statements while on active duty.  Each monthly leave and 
earnings statement records the leave days used and leave days accrued.   
 
 
4.  Moreover, the PRRB directed that the applicant’s pay record be audited to ensure that 
she is credited with all pay and allowances through her June 13, 2006 separation date. The Board 
presumes that the Coast Guard performed the audit as directed, as there has been no evidence to 
the contrary, except for the applicant’s allegation that she did not take all of the leave charged to 
her.   
 
 
5. Accordingly, the applicant has failed to present sufficient evidence that persuades the 
Board that she had unused leave upon her separation from active duty on June 13, 2006, or that 
that she is entitled to any pay and allowance other than that already received.    
 
 
  
 
 

6.  Accordingly, her application should be denied. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCGR,  for  correction  of  her  military 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 
 Nancy L. Friedman 

 

 

 
 Patrick B. Kernan 

 

 

   
 George A. Weller 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
record is denied.