PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            8 February 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000048606

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. George D. Paxson		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		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, in effect, that block 16 (Days of Accrued Leave Paid) of his Department of Defense (DD) Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected to show five (5) days.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that at the time he was processing for separation the system indicated that he had 30 days of accrued leave because his unit had not yet processed a ordinary leave he had already taken.  However, he claims that by the time he separated he really only had 5 days of accrued leave left for which he was paid on the date of his separation.  He claims that because his separation document indicated he was paid for 30 days of accrued leave, he was denied unemployment benefits and he provides decisional document from the State of Colorado to support this contention.  In addition, in support of his case, he also provided a copy of his last Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) leave and earnings statement (LES), which covered the period 1 through 21 June 2000.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he entered active duty for the period of service under review on 19 September 1997 and served for 2 years, 
9 months, and 3 days until being honorably discharged on 21 June 2000, under the provisions of paragraph 5-17 of Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of early release to attend school.  

5.  The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant on the date of his separation indicates in block 16 that upon the completion of this period of service he was paid for 30 days of accrued leave.  

6.  The applicant provided a copy of his last DFAS LES, which covered the pay period 1 through 21 June 2000.  This document confirms that on the date of his separation the applicant had a current leave balance of 5 days for which he  received an unused leave payment of $259.45.  

7.  The applicant also provided a Notice of Decision document, dated 12 July 2000, which was issued by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Denver Colorado.  This document indicates that the applicant’s claim for unemployment benefits for the period 2 through 22 July 2000 was disallowed because he had been paid for 30 days of accrued leave (vacation pay) by his employer.  

8.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) prescribes the separation documents prepared for individuals upon separation.  It establishes standardized policy for preparing and distributing DD Form 214.  Table 2-1 contains block by block preparation instructions for the DD Form 214.  The specific instructions for completing block 16 are, in effect, to enter the days of accrued pay being paid to the soldier as provided for by the finance office. 
CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention that his separation document incorrectly indicated that he had been paid for 30 days of accrued leave at the time of his separation and find his claim has merit. 

2.  The DFAS LES covering the applicant’s last pay period clearly shows that he only had a leave balance of 5 days at the time of his separation and that this is the number of accrued leave days for which he received unused leave pay.  

3.  In the opinion of the Board the 30 day entry in block 16 of the applicant’s 
DD Form 214 is incorrect and was likely the result of an administrative error.  This clearly resulted in an injustice to the applicant when it was used by the State as a basis to deny him unemployment benefits.  Thus, in the interest of justice and equity, the Board concludes that it would be appropriate to correct his separation document at this time.  

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

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was paid for 5 days of accrued leave upon his separation from active duty on 21 June 2000 and by issuing him a correction to his DD Form 214 that reflects this change. 

BOARD VOTE:  

__dh____  ___jhl___  ___gp___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		____JoAnn H. Langston____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000048606	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2001/02/08	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	2000/06/21	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200  C5	
DISCHARGE REASON	Early Release for School	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  1021	100.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.