RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:            18 November 2003  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003090314

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy L. Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		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).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:  

1.  The applicant requests that he be paid for the 27 days of leave he lost.

2.  The applicant states that, on 20 September 2002, a Finance representative computed his final leave and pay during his initial finance out-processing.  He requested his terminal leave begin on 23 September 2002 and go until              30 November 2002, his last day on active duty.  He had a total of 87.5 days of accrued leave at that time.  He accrued another 7.5 days through 30 November 2002 for a total projected accrued leave of 95 days.  

3.  The applicant further states that his original DA Form 31 (Request Authority for Leave) start date was 1 September 2002.  Because his retirement date had slipped and it was already 20 September 2002, the Finance representative recommended he complete a new DA Form 31 reflecting a sign-out date of       23 September 2002.  Later that day when he brought in a new DA Form 31, he was told that all of his data had already been inputted.  The Transition Point clerk also entered his leave and entered the number of days (27) to be sold back to the government on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).  He did not realize there was a problem with his paid leave until      2 December 2002.  At that time he was told he had lost those 27 days because he could not carry over [more] than 60 days on 1 October.  

4.  The applicant acknowledges that he was aware of this rule but was led to believe that by processing his financial documents a week in advance, that would have reduced his total number of leave days to 60 by 1 October.  The Finance representative told him that had he brought the problem to her earlier she could have called someone at the Defense Finance and Accounting Service to have his leave reinstated and he could have been paid for those days.  However, she no longer worked in retirement pay and she could not work on the problem.  He asked her for a statement but she would not provide one.  He should not be penalized for the mistakes and misinformation provided by the Finance staff.  Had he been properly informed, he could have taken a different option and avoided losing almost a month's basic pay.  

5.  The applicant provides a statement from the Noncommissioned Officer in Charge (NCOIC), Army Personnel, Fort Belvoir, VA.  The NCOIC stated that the applicant informed him in June 2002 of his retirement plans and indicated he wanted to take 30 days of leave and sell back 60 days to the government.  The NCOIC advised him about possible tax ramifications with those plans and the applicant changed his plans.  He would then take about 90 days of leave.  However, there was a delay at the U. S. Total Army Personnel Command in approving his retirement and he was forced to move his final outprocessing day from the last week of August to 23 September 2002.  That resulted in him having to cash in 27 days of leave.  His sale of leave was consistent with those of other service members whose retirement packets the NCOIC had processed in the past.  He feels the Finance office had more than ample time to process his leave.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  The applicant was commissioned and entered active duty on 29 September 1978.  He retired on 1 December 2002 in the rank of lieutenant colonel after completing over 24 years of creditable active service.

2.  Army Regulation 600-8-10 (Leaves and Passes) prescribes the policies for the leave and pass function of the Military Personnel System.  Paragraph 2-2b(2) states that soldiers are cautioned that if they do not take leave they may lose leave at the end of the fiscal year.  Also, soldiers who maintain a 60-day leave balance, and wait until late in the fiscal year to take leave, will be informed that they risk loss of leave over 60 days if the operational situation requires their presence.  Paragraph 2-2c(14) states that it is not the intent of leave policy that large leave balances be accrued expressly for settlement upon soldier's release from active duty.  

3.  Army Regulation 600-8-10, paragraph 3-1 states that the intent of special leave accrual is to provide relief to soldiers who are not allowed leave when undergoing lengthy deployment or during periods of hostility.  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.  

4.  The Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation, Volume 7A, paragraph 350101A states that, except as provided in subparagraph 350101D (concerning discharges under other than honorable conditions), a member who is discharged under honorable conditions is entitled to payment of unused accrued leave. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was a lieutenant colonel with over 24 years of active duty at the time he retired.  

2.  Evidence provided by the applicant shows that he was aware in June 2002 that he was planning to retire.  Although there was a delay with approving his retirement, he provides no evidence to show that there was ever any doubt that his retirement would be approved.

3.  According to the applicant, he had 87.5 days of accrued leave at the time he had his initial Finance out-processing appointment on 20 September 2002.  No matter what information his Finance representative provided to him on that date he had already forfeited about 25 days of accrued leave.
4.  The applicant's problem was with the accrual of leave; not with any delay there may have been in Finance processing his leave.  As a senior commissioned officer, he should have been aware of how much leave he would have accrued by 30 September 2002 and made plans during the summer of 2002 to take ordinary leave accordingly.  

5.  The applicant provides no evidence to show his sale of leave was "consistent with those of other service members whose retirement packets the NCOIC had processed in the past."

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__jns___  __mdm___  __bje___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

		___John N. Slone_____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003090314	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20031118	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Mr. Chun	
ISSUES         1.	121.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.