PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           9 August 2001                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000049766

	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	
	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Member	
	Ms. Gail J. Wire		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 he be paid for 25 days of accrued leave that he had to his credit at the time of his discharge.

3.  The applicant states that he effected an inter-service transfer from the Army to the US Coast Guard (USCG) and it was his intention to do so without a break in service.  This would have allowed him to carry forward his 25 days of accrued leave.  Unfortunately, a problem developed days prior to his discharge from the Army on 31 March 1999 and he was not able to enlist in the USCG until 7 May 1999.  Because of this 37-day break in service he was unable to carry forward his accrued leave and he ended up losing it.  He states that had he known that he would not be able to enlist in the USCG on 1 April 1999, he would have cashed in his leave and taken the money.

4.  In support of his application, the applicant submits a copy of his DD Form 
214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty); a letter from the US Department of Transportation, dated 23 February 1999; a copy of his Leave and Earnings Statement (LES) for 1-31 March 1999; Travel Orders #1321, dated 5 May 1999; an Acceptance and Oath of Office, dated 7 May 1999; and a form letter from the US Department of Transportation, dated 21 October 1999.

5.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 9 January 1990 and he was separated with an honorable discharge on 24 April 1991 in order to accept an appointment as a Warrant Officer (WO1) in the US Army Reserve (USAR) on 25 April 1991.

6.  The applicant served as a helicopter pilot and was eventually promoted to the rank of Chief Warrant Officer 2 (CW2).  During his service as a CW2 in the USAR, he learned of a direct commissioning program for helicopter pilots offered by the USCG.  He applied for the USCG Direct Commission Aviator Program and, on 23 February 1999, received notification that the Secretary of Transportation had approved his appointment as an Ensign (O-1) in the USCG.

7.  The applicant applied for discharge from the Army.  He was separated from active duty with an honorable discharge as a Chief Warrant Officer 2 (CW2) on 31 March 1999 under the provisions of chapter 2, Army Regulation 600-8-24, for miscellaneous/ general reasons.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows that he served 7 years, 11 months, and 6 days of active military service on the enlistment under review and that he also had 1 year, 3 months and 16 days of prior active service.  Item 18 (Remarks) of his DD Form 214 indicated "SM WILL CARRY FORWARD LEAVE BALANCE OF 25 DAYS."  His final LES from the Army, dated 31 March 1999, also shows that he carried forward 25 days of accrued leave. 

8.  The record does not indicate why the applicant was unable to enlist in the USCG immediately following his separation from the active Army.  The applicant has stated for the record that the 23 February 1999 letter advising him of his acceptance in the Direct Commission Aviator Program was premature, that the Secretary of Transportation did not actually sign the approval document until several weeks later.  He added that the USCG detailing (assignment) officer kept assuring him that all required paperwork would be completed by 31 March 
1999 and to continue with his separation plans as he would be sworn-in to the USCG on 1 April 1999.  Unfortunately, he was not administered the oath of office until 7 May 1999.

9.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the US Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) which states that, while it is unfortunate that the USCG was unable to accommodate the applicant's request to transfer to that organization without a break in service, Army Regulation
600-8-10, Leaves and Passes, is designed to allow soldiers the opportunity to use accrued leave to the maximum extent possible.  It recommends denial of the applicant's request.

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-10, Leaves and Passes, prescribes the policies and mandated operating tasks for the leave and pass function of the Military Personnel System.  It states that payment of accrued leave is permissible up to a limit of 60 days one time during a military career.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant fully intended to effect his inter-service transfer to the USCG without a break in service.  This is borne out by his DD Form 214 and his LES which both indicate that he was carrying over 25 days of leave from the Army to the USCG.

2.  The applicant did not initiate his 31 March 1999 separation action from the Army until he was notified that he had been accepted in the USCG Direct Commission Aviator Program.  Unfortunately, that notification on 13 February 1999 appears to have been premature.  This delay apparently made his 1 April 1999 accession into the USCG impossible, thereby causing a break in service.

3.  Had the applicant known that he would not be sworn in as a USCG officer until 7 May 1999, he would have timed his separation from the Army to coincide with this date.  Were that not possible, he would have certainly taken 25 days of terminal (transition) leave, or requested payment of those 25 days of leave.  He most certainly would not have forfeited those leave days.

4.  Despite his best efforts, the applicant was caught in circumstances beyond his control and ended up losing 25 days of accrued leave.  This is unfair to the applicant and, in view of the foregoing, his 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 requested payment for his 25 days of accrued leave upon his separation from the Army on 31 March 1999 and by paying to him the value of those 25 days of accrued leave.

BOARD VOTE:  

___inw__  __fbe____  ___gjw__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		_Irene N. Wheelwright_
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000049766	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010809	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19990331	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR600-8-24 (Para 2-5) 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A03.00	
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	121.0300	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.