DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
					2 NAVY ANNEX
					   WASHINGTON DC 2O3~O-5lOO

				MEH
									Docket No. 9707-06
									3 Mar 08

From:	Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To:	Secretary of the Navy

Subj:	REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD ICO
	
Ref:	(a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552

End:	(1) DD Form 149 w/attachments
(2)	CMC memo 1900 RET of 6 Feb 08
(3)	Subject’s naval record

1.	Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a) Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected to show his Leave Awaiting Separation Orders (LASO) reflect a Terminal Leave detachment date of 2 June 2005, vice 10 May 2005.

2.	The Board, consisting of Messrs. George, Pfeiffer, and Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 3 March 2008 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.

3.	The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice, finds as follows:

a.	Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy.

b.	On 30 June 2005 Petitioner was transferred to the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve (FMCR). His discharge certificate shows that while on active duty, he served for over 10 years as a

Docket No. 9707-06

Personnel Clerk and for over 11 years as an Administrative Chief.

c.	On 14 March 2006 he received notice from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) that he was indebted to DoD. The debt ($1,501.06) was a result of a negative leave balance of 8.5 days, incurred based on a Terminal Leave detachment date of 10 May 2005.

d.	In his application, Petitioner states that in late March 2005, prior to transfer to the Fleet Reserve, he went to the Integrated Personnel Administration Center (IPAC), and along with IPAC personnel, calculated his Terminal Leave detachment date as 10 May 2005.

e.	Petitioner also states that as a “courtesy” he was given the opportunity to sign his LASO in advance, which he did, acknowledging that he understood the effective date of the orders was 10 May 2005.

f.	He later states he was working on two important projects and did not want to leave unfinished business. Therefore, he decided to commence his Terminal Leave effective 2 June 2005, vice 10 May 2005. However, no change was made to his orders. The “debt” was thereafter calculated based on a Terminal Leave detachment date of 10 May 2005 as stated on his orders.

g.	To support his assertion that his Terminal Leave date should be 2 June 2005, vice 10 May 2005, Petitioner submitted an archival record from the Marine On Line (MOL) website indicating he requested and was granted leave for 10, 18, 20, 23, 31 May, and 1 June 2005. He contends this leave would not have been granted if he was already on Terminal Leave.

h.	He also submitted his check-out sheet, which was dated 24 May 2005, and signed 29 June 2005.

i. Assistant Commander for Programs, Marine Corps Systems Command, has provided a letter supporting Petitioner’s claim that he was on leave the above mentioned days, and present for duty on all other dates in question.

2

Docket No. 9707-06

j.	In correspondence attached as enclosure (2), the office having cognizance over the subject matter addressed in Petitioner’s application has recommended denial of his request. However, they conclude that the leave approved through the MOL for 10, 18, 20, 23, 31 May and 1 June was erroneous (as they contend he had already commenced Terminal Leave) . This, they claim, resulted in Petitioner being charged twice for the effected days, and therefore his negative leave balance should be reduced from 8.5 days to 2.5 days. The advisory opinion concludes that no further relief should be granted.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants favorable action. Although Petitioner signed his orders stating that he would commence Terminal Leave on 10 May 2005, and by his own admission, calculated his Terminal Leave from that date, there was sufficient supporting documentation to establish that he did request and receive approval for leave on 10, 18, 20, 23, 31 May and 1 June 2005, and that he did continue to work from 9 May 2005 (minus the aforementioned days) until 2 June 2005.

RECONMENDATION:

That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected, where appropriate, to show that:

a.	His Terminal Leave began on 2 June 2005, vice 10 May 2005. This will eliminate the debt currently owed. It will not entitle Petitioner to any additional benefits as he has already sold the maximum of 60 days leave.

4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(c)) it is certified that quorum was present at the Board’s review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board’s proceedings in the above entitled matter.

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN	WILLIAM J. HESS,, III
Recorder	Acting Recorder

2

Docket No. 9707-06

5.	The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review and action.

						W. DEAN PFEIFFER
						Executive Director