Army Pay & Allowances, pay raises, pay allowances, pay charts - Army Times

Troops could lose leave due to administrative snag

Active and reserve troops who stand to earn extra days of administrative leave for long deployments and mobilizations and are just now coming off those tours of duty could have a nasty surprise in store: They might lose their leave because the services have yet to tell personnel centers how to credit it.

On top of that, a quirk in federal law might prevent any backdating of the entitlement.

That means Russ Harper could lose as much as five months off the leave he stood to gain.

Harper has been one busy Army Reserve soldier. A major in civil affairs, he’s been deployed for the better part of the past five years: Israel, Bulgaria, Comoros, Af-ghanistan and twice to Iraq.

So when the Pentagon announced April 18 a new policy awarding days of administrative leave for troops on long or frequent deployments, Harper was psyched.

For reservists, the program awards a free day for each month or fraction of a month of mobilization beyond 12 months in any 72-month period. It awards two free days for each month beyond 18 months served and four days a month beyond 24 months served.

Harper would earn about five months of what is officially termed “administrative absence” because computation of creditable time is supposed to be retroactive to Oct. 7, 2001, the start of the war in Afghanistan. That is leave he could use in lieu of the 1½ to 2 months of regular earned leave he has piled up — some of which could then be sold back to Uncle Sam when he exits the military.

A very nice benefit, he agreed.

Initially, there was just one problem: No one in the finance outprocessing office at Fort Bragg, N.C., where Harper was demobilizing during the first week of June, had any idea what he was talking about. Nor, Harper said, did anyone at pay centers at Fort McCoy, Wis., the U.S. Army Reserve Command or the Defense Finance and Accounting Service.

It wasn’t their fault — they simply haven’t been told what to do.

The April 18 memo announcing the policy, written by David S.C. Chu, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, told the services to give him their implementing instructions for the program “no later than” April 30.

When asked if Chu had received those service plans, Marine Maj. Stewart Upton, a Pentagon spokesman, said: “Not at this time. However, we are aware that the services are continuing to work on them.”

So, in effect, the policy is not in effect.

One might think that in the interim, defense officials at least could promise that any troops who can’t get credited for the administrative leave would get that credit retroactively once the services issue their implementing instructions.

However, Upton said that won’t necessarily be the case, although “each of the services is doing everything possible to ensure that no one is disadvantaged by this delay.”

A defense official who asked not to be identified explained that unforeseen legal issues are involved that could affect the Pentagon’s ability to retroactively award the leave. However, the official could not cite specific law to support that, and efforts to get further details by press time were unsuccessful.

In similar situations in which new entitlements have been created in the past, making them retroactive has required legislative action by Congress.

Harper said June 21 that it would be a big personal disappointment if he loses what sounded like a pretty nice reward for his reserve service.

“It would really be a shame,” Harper said. “Hopefully, they’re not going to renege on it. That would be disappointing.”

He said he’s not surprised to hear of the administrative snafu.

“It’s got to be a big issue for them,” he said. “And I understand they’re not going to make everybody happy.”

Even if he doesn’t lose any leave — if it is eventually awarded retroactively — Harper said a delay in awarding it will cause an administrative nightmare for personnel specialists.

“Everybody’s stretched enough as it is,” Harper said. “I think it would be an undue burden to put on these demobilization centers.”

Still, he added, “I would like to think that if they announced it, they would honor it in some way. Hopefully, they’ll be able to work it out.”