PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           1 March 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999025930

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

	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Melinda M. Darby		Member	
	Mr. John Saputo		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests that his discharge date be adjusted to account for all his accrued leave.

3.  The applicant states that he was not allowed to take all of his accrued leave prior to his discharge and so he lost leave.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that after having had prior service in the Regular Army, he enlisted in the Army National Guard in March 1983.  On         31 July 1985, he was voluntarily ordered to active duty in a active guard/reserve (AGR) status.

5.  On 4 December 1997, the U. S. Army Total Personnel Command (PERSCOM), Physical Disability Branch approved the applicant’s disability separation with severance pay.  The approval message has a pen and ink correction in the paragraph concerning authorized leave and effective discharge date.  The original entry for the days leave authorized is illegible but the correction reads 20 days.  The original discharge effective date was 16 February (1998); the correction reads 17 January (1998).  A handwritten note on the message indicates “DJMS pay system says sold 43 still must sell back 35 days remainder = 20 days.”

6.  A typewritten note to the applicant, prepared on an unknown date by an unknown person but probably someone in the California Army National Guard, informs him that Ms. Manns (from the Physical Disability Branch; she no longer works there) verified that he had sold back 43 days, not 60 as he had believed, and they determined he needed to sell back 35 days.  “They” had determined he would have 20 leave days remaining to take as terminal leave.

7.  On 18 December 1997, the applicant requested terminal leave.  His DA Form 31 shows he had accrued 43.5 days, he requested 20 days, and he listed 23.5 days as excess.

8.  On 17 January 1998, the applicant was discharged by reason of disability, with severance pay.

9.  In December 1998 and January 1999, the California Army National Guard acknowledged that the applicant did have more accrued leave at the time of his discharge that he should have been allowed to take as transition leave since he was not authorized to sell it back.  (He had previously sold the maximum amount, 60 days, back to the Army.)  

10.  In April 1999, the U. S. Army Physical Disability Agency verified that the pay system showed the applicant showed he had previously sold back 60 days of leave and that he had accrued 43 days.

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-10 covers leave and pass programs.  Paragraph 2-4 states that payment of accrued leave is limited to 60 days one time during a military career.  Paragraph 4-21g provides that an established transition date may be extended only for soldiers pending physical disability.  This allows them to use their accrued leave as transition leave provided they cannot sell or cash in leave to the Government.  

12.  On 17 February 2000, the U. S. Army Physical Disability Agency stated they no longer had the paperwork pertaining to the applicant.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board concludes that a Government error occurred in this case due to a miscommunication between two Army agencies (the Physical Disability Branch at PERSCOM and probably the California Army National Guard).

2.  The applicant correctly believed that he had previously sold back 60 days leave; therefore, he could not sell back any more and would have had to take his entire accrued leave as transition leave or lose some of it.  The Board concludes that PERSCOM had this correct information and therefore prepared his disability separation approval message giving him an effective discharge date of              16 February 1998, taking into account the fact he would have to take all 43 days leave.  Somehow, someone in the California Army National Guard understood PERSCOM to mean he had sold back 43 days leave, could sell back more, and needed to take only 20 days transition leave.

3.  As a result of the erroneous calculation of the amount of leave the applicant was allowed to sell back (zero being the correct amount), the applicant’s change in his discharge date from 16 February to 17 January 1998 caused him to lose entitlements to certain pay and allowances.

4.  In view of the foregoing, it would be in the interest of justice to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing the applicant was discharged from active duty by reason of a disability on 16 February 1998.

2.  That the applicant be paid any and all due pay and allowances to which he is entitled as a result of the aforementioned correction.

BOARD VOTE:  

__gdp___  __mmd___  __js____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

			George D. Paxson
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999025930	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000301	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	128.00	
2.	121.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.