MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            14 October 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR1998013650

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his records be corrected to show that he took terminal leave from 23 December 1986 to 25 February 1987; that he be awarded retirement points for that period; that he be issued a new DD Form 214; and that his commission in the USAR and his discharge certificate be corrected to show his corrected date of separation.

APPLICANT STATES:  That although his request for terminal leave was approved by the Department, his discharge orders were amended to change his date of separation and to delete his terminal leave.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

On 24 September 1986, while serving as a captain on active duty in Korea, the applicant submitted his unqualified resignation to enter the ministry.  In that request he stated that he planned to take 65 days of terminal leave.

On 1 December 1986 the Military Personnel Center (MILPERCEN, now the PERSCOM) approved the applicant’s request.  That approval did not address his statement concerning terminal leave.

On 17 December 1986 orders were issued which stated that the applicant had approved leave from 23 December 1986 to 25 February 1987, and that he was to be discharged effective 25 February 1986 (sic).

On 24 December 1986 his separation orders were amended to show that he was discharged from the Regular Army effective 22 December 1986.

The applicant’s records do not contain a copy of his DD Form 214 discharging him from the Regular Army.  It is presumed by his request that he was discharged effective 22 December 1986.

Army Regulation 630-5, paragraph 10-3, provides the guidance on transition leave, formally called terminal leave.  This paragraph states that soldiers who are stationed overseas who are returning to CONUS for transition may be granted leave in route.  However, this regulation specifically states that leave will not be granted that will interfere with timely processing or transition.  This paragraph continues that soldiers who take terminal leave will not receive settlement of their pay accounts until their actual transition date.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  Transition (terminal) leave is not an entitlement.  It is granted solely at the convenience of the Government.

2.  Contrary to the applicant’s contention, the MILPERCEN did not direct that he be given terminal leave.

3.  However, it is apparent that the applicant had either been approved for terminal leave or his orders were improperly issued under the assumption that he had terminal leave approved.

4.  Absent records to show what transpired at that time, the possibilities must be considered.  Was the applicant’s separation orders issued based on his assertion that he had been granted terminal leave, and those orders amended when it was discovered he had not been granted terminal leave?  Was he granted terminal leave and then had to have that leave revoked because he had accepted settlement on his pay account?  Or was it discovered that the transition leave would interfere with the timely processing of his transition?

5.  The applicant has not shown that any of the above scenarios, all of which would be legitimate reasons not to grant him transition leave, occurred in his case.

6.  In this case the Board must apply the premise of regularity, that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board must presume what the Army did was proper.

7.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__jhl____  _kak_____  _le_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1998013650	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19991014	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	135.02	
2.	136.01	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.