PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            28 March 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001066142

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyi		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, the remission/cancellation of her debt to the government. 

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that she was granted Permissive Temporary Duty (PTDY) for the period of 1 December 1999 to 10 December 1999 and transitional leave during the period from 11 December 1999 to 20 December 1999, in connection with her separation from the service.  However, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) has now determined that she was not authorized the leave for the period of 11 December to 20 December 1999 and has imposed a debt against her for 10 days of leave in the amount of $676.24.  In support of her application she submits a copy of her discharge orders, Request and Authority for Leave (DA Form 31), Statement of Military Leave Account,   Pre-Separation Counseling Checklist (DD Form 2648) and the debt notice from the DFAS.

4.  The applicant’s military records were not available for review by the Board.  However, the documents submitted by the applicant show that on 13 September 1999, while serving in the pay grade of E-3, at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, she underwent pre-separation counseling.  However, she was not counseled in regards to PTDY.

5.  On 8 November 1999, she submitted a request for 10 days of permissive TDY and 10 days of transitional leave in connection with her separation.  Her supervisor recommended approval and the commander (a major) approved her request.  The applicant was honorably discharged on 20 December 1999.

6.  On 17 September 2001, the DFAS sent the applicant a notice of indebtedness for excess leave taken during the period of 11 December to 20 December 1999.  She was charged with 10 days of excessive leave and the DFAS informed her that she was not entitled to Permissive TDY (PTDY) Leave during that period.  Her debt to the government at that time was $676.24, at 5% interest.

7.  Army Regulation 600-8-10 prescribes the policies, operating tasks, and steps governing military personnel absences.  It provides, in pertinent part, that commanders of units, normally commanded by officers in the rank of lieutenant colonel or higher are authorized to approve PTDY Leave for 10 days or less.  Soldiers are only authorized to take either PTDY or transition excess leave, but not both.  Soldiers are authorized 10 days of PTDY and made be granted an additional 10 days if requested and approved.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Although the Board cannot determine with any degree of certainty exactly what happened in this case, the applicant was clearly approved to take 20 days of PTDY and transition leave prior to separation from the service.

2.  While the DFAS has clearly indicated that she was not authorized PTDY for the period in question, the available evidence shows that her commander approved the leave (absence).  Accordingly, the Board finds that she relied on her unit to advise her accordingly to determine her entitlements and to her detriment, has incurred a debt that she otherwise would not have incurred if she had been properly advised at the time.

3.  Accordingly, the Board finds that the Department had an obligation to inform her of her entitlements at the time, in order for her to properly transition from the service.  The Board also believes that had she been informed that she was not entitled to the transition leave, she could have planned her separation accordingly and would not have incurred such a debt.  Therefore, given the circumstances and the fact that it took almost 2 years for the error to be discovered, the Board believes that the debt should be cancelled/remitted.

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 remitting/canceling the debt of the individual concerned that was imposed as a result of her taking 10 days of PTDY that she should not have been authorized.

BOARD VOTE:  

___fe ___  __le ____  ___tl  ___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		____Fred N. Eichorn______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001066142	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/03/28	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  293	128.0100/REMIT DEBT	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.