PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:          

	BOARD DATE:               13 March 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:      AR2002074350

	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. Beverly A. Young		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas A. Pagan		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	
	Mr. John A. Kelley		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 correction of his records to show 15.0 days of special leave accrual (SLA).

3.  The applicant states that his SLA was not authorized until the end of fiscal year 2001.  He claims that his SLA was reflected as leave lost at the beginning 
of fiscal year 1999 through fiscal year 2001 on his Leave and Earnings Statement (LES), but was corrected by Servicing Finance Office.  He claims that he submitted three requests during fiscal year 2001 to correct the leave problem, but the Finance Office was not able to correct his SLA.  He also states that his SLA was not used in fiscal year 2001 because it was not reflected on his LES form.  He states that he was advised to submit this application to correct his SLA problem.  In support of his application, he submitted a memorandum from the Headquarters United States Army Forces Command and numerous JUMPS [Joint Uniform Military Pay System] LES covering the periods January 1999 through June 2002.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he served as an enlisted solider in the Regular Army from 24 September 1987 to 29 November 1995.  He was appointed as a Reserve Warrant Officer on 30 November 1995 in the rank of Warrant Officer One and served as a Warrant Officer until 22 September 1999.  The applicant was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer on 23 September 1999 in the rank of second lieutenant and is currently serving on active duty in the rank of captain in the U.S. Army Reserve.

5.  In a 7 December 1998 memorandum from the Adjutant General of the Headquarters United States Forces Command, the applicant was approved for 17 days of SLA.  This memorandum stated that the accrued leave must be used by the third fiscal year after the qualifying service ended which is 30 September 2001.

6.  The applicant's LES for the period 1 through 31 January 1999 shows "17.0" days of leave lost.  This LES does not show the applicant's 17.0 days of SLA.

7.  The applicant's LES for the period 1 through 30 April 1999 shows 17.0 days of SLA was reinstated to his leave balance.  As a result, his leave balance was adjusted to show "77.0" days.

8.  The applicant's LES for the period 1 through 31 July 1999 shows he earned 25.0 days of leave in addition to his 77.0 days of leave (a total of 102.0 days).  This LES shows the applicant used 34.0 days of leave and his leave balance was 68.0 days.  Of the 34 days of leave used, 9 of those days were from the applicant's SLA; therefore, he had only 8.0 days of SLA remaining.

9.  The applicant's LES for the period 1 through 31 October 1999 does not show that his 68.0 days of leave were brought forward into fiscal year 2000.  This LES shows that 60.0 days of leave were brought forward, that 13.0 days of leave were lost, and that there was no entry for the applicant's remaining 8.0 days of SLA.

10.  By the beginning of fiscal year 2001, the applicant's leave account had not been adjusted to show 8.0 days of SLA.  His LES for the period 1 through 31 October 2000 shows that only 60.0 days of leave were brought forward, not the 68 days to which he was entitled based on 60.0 days of leave and 8 days of SLA.

11.  The applicant's LES for the period 1 October 2000 to 30 September 2001 does not show that 8 days of SLA were ever restored to his leave account.

12.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief of the Personnel Services Branch, U.S. Total Army Personnel Command.  On 2 October 2002, the applicant was provided 15 days in which to submit comments.  The applicant concurred with the advisory opinion on 15 October 2002.

13.  The advisory opinion recommended approval of the applicant's request in part.  The opinion stated that by law, soldiers may accrue and carry forward up to 60 days leave at the end of each fiscal year.  However, soldiers assigned to a hostile fire and imminent danger area or assigned duties in support of a contingency operation may carry forward a maximum of 90 days leave at the end of a fiscal year.  In effect, this opinion stated that the applicant is entitled to 8.0 days of SLA. This opinion recommended that the applicant's leave account and military record be adjusted to show reinstatement of 8.0 days leave versus 15 days leave based on the reduction of his leave balance in July 1999 below the authorized SLA of 17 days.

14.  Army Regulation 600-8-10 (Leaves and Passes) prescribes the policies, operating tasks, and steps governing military personnel absences.  Chapter 3 of this regulation governs special leave accrual.  Paragraph 3-2 states, in pertinent part, that special leave accrual is authorized to soldiers who served in an area in which he or she was entitled to hostile fire or imminent danger pay for at least 120 continuous days.  Paragraph 3-3 states, in pertinent part, that special leave accrual authorizes soldiers to carry forward up to 90 days of leave at the end of a fiscal year (60 days normal leave carry over plus 30 days special leave accrual).  It also states that special leave accrual must be used before the end of the third fiscal year after the fiscal year in which the qualifying service ended.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board considered the applicant's request for correction of his records to show 15.0 days of SLA.

2.  Evidence of record shows that, on 7 December 1998, the applicant received approval for 17 days of SLA to be used prior to the end of Fiscal Year 2001 (1 October 2001).  

3.  The applicant's LES for the period 1 through 31 January 1999 shows 17 days of leave lost which clearly is the 17 days of SLA the applicant was entitled to carry forward until it was used or it expired at the end of Fiscal Year 2001.

4.  Records show that eventually the applicant's 17 days of SLA were reinstated on his LES covering the period 1 through 30 April 1999.  

5.  The applicant's LES for the period 1 through 31 July 1999 shows he earned 25.0 days of leave in addition to his 77.0 days of leave (a total of 102.0 days).  This LES also shows the applicant used 34.0 days of leave and, as a result, his leave balance was now 68.0 days.  Of the 34 days of leave used, 9 of those days were from the applicant's SLA; therefore, he had only 8.0 days of SLA remaining as of his 31 July 1999 LES.

6.  The applicant's LES for the period 1 through 31 October 1999 shows that only 60 days of leave were carried forward into Fiscal Year 2000 when in fact the applicant was entitled to carry forward 60 days of leave and 8 days of SLA.

7.  There is no evidence that the 8.0 days of SLA, to which the applicant was entitled, was ever restored to his leave account or used prior to the end of Fiscal Year 2001.  

8.  As a result, the Board concluded that the applicant had been unjustly deprived of 8 days of SLA that he was entitled to use prior to 1 October 2001.  

9.  The Board also determined that the applicant used 9 days of his SLA; therefore, he is not entitled to restoration of 15 days of SLA as requested.  

10.  Based on the foregoing, the Board determined that 8 days of SLA should be restored to the applicant's leave account effective 1 May 2003.  The Board also determined that he should be authorized a period of one year to use this SLA and has until 30 April 2004 to use these 8 days of SLA.

11.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records, but only as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

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

	a.  by showing the individual concerned is entitled to 8 days of SLA; and 

	b.  by authorizing the individual concerned one year (1 May 2003 through 30 April 2004) in which to use these 8 days of SLA.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

TAP_____  RWA____  JAK____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		Thomas A. Pagan_______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002074350	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20030313	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT PARTIAL	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Mr. Schneider	
ISSUES         1.	121.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.