Can the COC deny paternity leave of 21 days for a secondary caregiver?

2019-02-04T01:56:04-05:00

Can the COC deny paternity leave of 21 days for a secondary caregiver? I have read 2019-05 and it black and white says I get 21 days non chargeable. COC states I only get 10 and denied my 9 days of use or lose leave. There reasoning is I am essential to the mission. CQ is basically my only mission as I am in the MEB process. Any input before I go visit IG?

Response by CPL(P) Shelby Weaver made Feb 4 at 2019 2:40 AM

2019-02-04T02:40:09-05:00

COC can’t deny the 21 days of pat leave. See if you can find someone to cover your CQ. I would take it to BC or CSM before IG.

Response by SSG Brian G. made Feb 4 at 2019 7:20 AM

2019-02-04T07:20:19-05:00

Does not matter if you are essential to the mission or not. COC has to follow the regs just like everyone else. Grab up the reg, make sure it is the current on, show it to your COC. At this point they can either comply and acknowledge your correct maternity leave, or you can take it up the chain.

The next steps should be your HQ company to see the CSM and/or your BC. Before you do this, be sure to document, document, document. Show them where the only thing you are doing is pulling CQ and not your primary job function, point out as well your MEB. If this fails, then bring the heat with an IG visit.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2019 11:55 AM

2019-02-04T11:55:15-05:00

Reading Army Directive 2019-05, I noted that it states, more than once, that the commander "may approve." When trying to interpret regulations and policies, attention must be paid to whether it states "may" versus "will," or "shall."
Yes, context must be considered, but generally, "may" means a choice to act, while "will," or "shall," makes it imperative.
The only leave that "may not be disapproved by a commander," is "maternity convalescent leave" (6. a. (7)).
The Directive doesn't state a commander may not disapprove the other leaves covered in the Directive.
The Directive "limits" secondary caregiver (SC) leave to 21 days, but doesn't mandate commanders grant 21 days non-chargeable leave.
This, and the "may approve" are the sticking points.
What to do:
You should consider using the Open Door policy to have a discussion with your COC. Determine what their position/interpretation is. You can ask the commander how they interpret it. If not satisfied, raise the issue with the IG.
The Directive states it "must be taken in only one increment," so you only get one shot at this.
Not sure what you mean with regard to the reference about use or lose leave being denied. This only muddies the water without further explanation.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 5 at 2019 1:08 PM

2019-02-05T13:08:46-05:00

Sounds to me like maybe your COC isn't tracking the new change in Army Directive 2019-05. However, you need to understand it is NOT a requirement. Depending on mission requirements and manning you may or may not get the entire 21 days.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 8 at 2019 12:42 PM

2019-02-08T12:42:36-05:00

Here is the latest. I urge you to peruse it and then go talk to the CSM.

If we send people home from war for it, we can send you, IMO.

https://www.milsuite.mil/book/docs/DOC-577438

milSuite Login

milSuite provides a collection of social business tools for Department of Defense (DoD) personnel that facilitates professional networking, learning, and innovation through knowledge sharing and collaboration.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 17 at 2019 3:20 PM

2019-02-17T15:20:06-05:00

The CoC can deny. The real issue may be the MEB. There are periods during the MEB process where the service member is not allowed to take leave.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2023 10:47 AM

2023-01-03T10:47:44-05:00

It literally says "may not be disapproved by commander", this doesn't sound like an option like the 1SGs below said. And if you read further it says they can knky disapprove it if your within 3 months of an operational deployment