PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           7 December 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000042673

	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.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Michael L. Engle		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor		Chairperson	
	Mr. John P. Infante		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz		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 restoration of lost leave.

3.  The applicant states that he sold 30 days of leave on 21 June 1999 because he did not want to be over the maximum number of days allowed to be carried over into the new fiscal year.  He contends that he was told payment would be no later than 31 July 1999, but it was not paid until 8 October 1999, causing him to lose 27 days.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Army on 6 August 1987 for 4 years and successfully completed his initial training.  He was still on active duty at the time of his application, serving in the rank/pay grade of staff sergeant/E-6.

5.  On 9 February 1995 the applicant, while still a sergeant, reenlisted for 4 years and requested a duty assignment to Europe.

6.  On 5 January 1998 the applicant requested an 8-month extension of his last enlistment to 8 October 1999, for the purpose of meeting the service remaining requirement for a return assignment to the continental United States.  The applicant indicated on his request for extension that he was counseled on cashing in accrued leave but did not indicate an election to do so.  The substance of the counseling is unknown.

7.  On 17 June 1999 the applicant again extended his enlistment, this time by     9 months to 8 July 2000, to meet the service remaining obligation for promotion to staff sergeant.  As before, the applicant indicated he was counseled on cashing in accrued leave but did not indicate an election to do so.

8.  During the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Entitlements Branch, Systems and Procedures Office, Defense Finance and Accounting Service.  It opined that cashing in of accrued leave due to a large balance prior to the end of the fiscal year is not authorized.  It further states that misinformation given to the soldier or his misunderstanding of the rules should not be a basis for recrediting lost leave.  It contended that payment was made in accordance with established procedures and, therefore, recommended that the applicant’s request be denied.  A copy of the opinion was provided to the applicant for his information and opportunity to submit a rebuttal.

9.  A second advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Personnel Services Branch, Total Army Personnel Command.  It opined that the applicant was erroneously allowed to cash in accrued leave on a second extension of enlistment and that it was unfortunate that the applicant was misinformed regarding options for cashing in accrued leave.  It suggested that he could seek relief by filing a remission for cancellation of debt due to no fault of his own.  It recommended that the applicant’s request be denied.  A copy of the opinion was provided to the applicant for his information and opportunity to submit a rebuttal.

10.  On 28 October 2000 the applicant responded to the above advisory opinions.  He explained that on 22 June 1999, the Army career counselor gave him the option to sell up to 30 days of his accrued leave.  At that time he contends he had 78.5 days of leave accrued and elected to sell 27 days to allow him to use a small amount of leave and to bring his balance to 60 days by the end of the fiscal year.  Furthermore, he states that his commander approved this request and informed him that payment would be made by the end of the following month, July 1999.  However, payment did not occur until 8 October 1999.  As a result, he lost 27 days on 1 October 1999

11.  Evidence in the applicant’s finance records indicates that the applicant had requested to cash in accrued leave in conjunction with his 17 June 1999 extension of enlistment.  However, there was an administrative delay for unknown reasons causing the payment not to be made until 8 October 1999, after the beginning of the fiscal year.  The applicant automatically lost 27 days on the last day of the fiscal year.  Also, those finance records indicate that there was an inexplicable delay in recording both the first and second extensions of enlistment.  Correction of his service dates to reflect these two extensions was not accomplished until sometime after 10 December 1999.

12.  Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation, Volume 7A, Table 35-4, provides the governing rules for payment of accrued leave to enlisted members who extend their enlistment.  Rule 2 provides that if an enlisted member of any military service voluntarily extends his enlistment, regardless of the duration of extension, and the member continues on active duty in the extension period, then accrued leave is payable on the day before the effective date of extension.  No payment can be made on a second or subsequent extensions.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board is of the opinion that the applicant was improperly counseled at the time of his first extension of enlistment, which was compounded by administrative errors regarding the update of his finance and personnel records.  The applicant should have been afforded the opportunity to cash accrued leave at the time of his first extension and his records should have been properly documented to reflect both the extension and payment of accrued leave.

2.  It appears very likely that the incomplete and/or late processing of his first extension significantly contributed to the erroneous authorization for payment of accrued leave in conjunction with the second extension of enlistment.
3.  Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that had he been properly counseled he would have opted to cash in accrued leave in conjunction with the first extension.

4.  It is also reasonable to presume that the applicant submitted his request for cashing in accrued leave in June 1999 shortly after his 17 June 1999 extension of enlistment.  Therefore, had it not been for related errors and slow processing, he would have received payment of leave and an adjustment of his leave balance prior to the beginning of the upcoming fiscal year and would not have lost any leave.

5.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected:

a.  by showing that the individual concerned was paid for 30 days of accrued leave in conjunction with his first extension of enlistment in January 1998; and

b.  by restoring to his leave account the 27 days of leave lost at the end of Fiscal Year 1999.

2.  That if the foregoing corrections result in an indebtedness to the government, such debt be cancelled, waived, or forgiven, as appropriate, and not charged to the individual concerned.

BOARD VOTE:  

__RVO__  __JPI___  ___EWL__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		___Raymond V. O’Connor___
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000042673	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20001207	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	121.03	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.