BOARD DATE: 24 July 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170014572 APPLICANT REQUESTS: in effect, * adjustment of his mandatory removal date (MRD) from January 2015 to June or July 2015 * compensation for 85 days of lost leave * compensation for 20 days of transition leave (based on regulatory entitlement) * compensation for 2 weeks of active duty he performed beyond his MRD in order to complete his out-processing APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) with statement * Constituent Request for Service * Orders 356-0270, Headquarters, U.S. Army Garrison (USAG), Fort Bragg, NC, dated 22 December 2014 * Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) documents * Out-Processing Appointment Request Form, initialized on 23 February 2015 * Leave and Earning Statements (LES) for the period 1 January 2015 to 28 February 2015 * DD Form 2958 (Service Member Career Readiness Standards/Individual Transition Plan Checklist), dated 16 March 2015 * VA Summary of Benefits, dated 25 February 2016 FACTS: 1. The applicant states his retirement date should be in June or July of 2015, not January 2015. He contends that he lost over 85 days of leave when he was not extended past his MRD. He provides the following background information. a. He was given an MRD of 31 January 2015, after twice not being selected for promotion to chief warrant officer four. He started his retirement process, and when he requested his medical records for the VA he found out his records were signed out to the MEB. He went to see the medical board personnel and he was told that the MEB took precedence over the MRD. They even called his commander and told her the same thing. b. He is not sure if his commander, the medical board personnel, U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), or the Retirement Services Office (RSO) was responsible for requesting the extension but no extension was ever completed. Someone should have submitted paper work to extend him. He questioned why HRC issued him retirement orders after notifying the RSO that he was pending a MEB. The RSO said the extension should have come from his chain of command. The MEB personnel said the extension should have come from them. There is no good system in place for individuals that must be extended beyond their MRD and he is not the only person to be a victim of a bad process. c. He states that the MEB process does not allow for an individual to take leave because of all of their medical appointments. d. On 18 February 2015, he was told that he had been retired, effective 31 January 2015. He was surprised because he had been trying unsuccessfully to get this corrected. He contacted the RSO and the MEB personnel to get an extension to cover the time he needed to out-process, and to get paid for his 85 days of lost leave. The RSO told him that they had emailed him about his retirement; however, he explained that his CAC card was not working so he did not have access to his email. He thought he was good to go, but unfortunately not. He feels that after almost 21 years of service that this is a poor way to treat a Soldier. 3. A review of the applicant's record shows he was appointed as a warrant officer on 13 January 2004 4. His record is void of the complete facts and circumstances of his retirement processing. The documents provided by the applicant show – a. HRC issued him retirement orders on 22 December 2014, with an effective date of 31 January 2015. b. The applicant was referred to the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) and evaluated by an MEB on 3 November 2014 for bilateral shoulder pain. c. On 9 January 2015, the MEB referred the applicant to the PEB. d. On 14 January 2015, the MEB findings and recommendation were approved; however, this document is void of the applicant's signature. There is no PEB information in his record or available with DES. 5. The applicant was retired on 31 January 2015 due to sufficient service. 6. He provides additional documents which show – a. He was scheduled to complete his retirement out-processing on 23 February 2015. b. As of 28 February 2015, he had accrued 87.5 days of annual leave, and he had been previously paid 60 days of leave. His February LES shows his pay and entitlements were in a "Held-Pay Status." He did not receive pay or entitlements for this period. c. He did not sign his Transition Plan Checklist (dated 21 January 2015) until 12 March 2015. d. His VA benefits are based on his honorable service from 29 March 1994 to 31 January 2015. 7. A review of the DES database shows the applicant's MEB case was terminated in the system on 11 February 2015 because the applicant elected retirement in lieu of the IDES process. 8. The applicant did not provide any documentation to show - * he requested and was denied annual leave * he requested and was approved for transition leave * his medical appointments prevented him from taking leave * he attempted to request an extension of his MRD and was denied * his IDES processing required the extension of his MRD based on the need for a lengthy review of his medical conditions 9. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 640, states that if the Secretary of the military department concerned determines that the evaluation of the physical condition of an officer and determination of the officer’s entitlement to retirement or separation for physical disability require hospitalization, or medical observation, and that such hospitalization or medical observation cannot be completed with confidence in a manner consistent with the member’s well-being before the date on which the officer would otherwise be required to retire or be separated under this title, the Secretary may defer the retirement or separation of the officer under this title. 10. By law, payment of accrued leave is limited to 60 days one time during a military career. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief is not warranted. 2. The Board found insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that his MRD should be adjusted or that he should receive any additional compensation for lost leave or time spent on administrative tasks after his retirement date. The Board noted there are no records available to corroborate his claim that he was unable to take leave in the months prior to transitioning out of the Army, and the Board further noted that the applicant himself likely impacted the timeline of his retirement when he elected retirement in lieu of the IDES process. Further the applicant had already sold back 60 days of leave, which can only be done once in a Soldier's career. 3. By a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined there is no error or injustice in this case. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : X :X :X DENY APPLICATION ? BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code , section 640, provides, a. If the Secretary of the military department concerned determines that the evaluation of the physical condition of an officer and determination of the officer’s entitlement to retirement or separation for physical disability require hospitalization, or medical observation, and that such hospitalization or medical observation cannot be completed with confidence in a manner consistent with the member’s well-being before the date on which the officer would otherwise be required to retire or be separated under this title, the Secretary may defer the retirement or separation of the officer under this title. b. A deferral of retirement or separation based on the above may not extend for more than 30 days after completion of the evaluation requiring hospitalization or medical observation. 2. Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges) prescribes- a. When an officer or warrant officer is being processed for retirement in lieu of elimination, the officer will be processed in accordance with the provision of this regulation and through the MEB/PEB system. b. A mandatory retirement is required by law and is initiated by HQDA. An officer must be retired on the date established by the applicable statute unless specifically provided by law (10 USC 640). An officer may request retirement and be retired voluntarily on mandatory retirement date. 3. AR 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement…) states retirement processing must be completed by the effective date established in DA orders. Individuals processed for mandatory retirement, the date of retirement will be – * the mandatory retirement date * as soon thereafter as possible, as provided * and earlier date if requested 4. AR 600-8-10 (Leaves and Passes) prescribes the Army leave and pass polices. It states – a. By law, payment of accrued leave is limited to 60 days one time during a military career. b. Transition leave (formerly called terminal leave) is a chargeable leave granted together with transition from the Service, including retirement. The established transition date may be extended only for Soldiers pending physical disability. This allows them to use their accrued leave as transition leave, provided they cannot sell or cash in leave to the Government. The unit commander or designee is the approval authority for transition leave requests. 5. AR 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)) states the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170014572 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1