IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 MARCH 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080018023 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, reconsideration of his previous request to have his date of rank (DOR) for promotion to Chief Warrant Officer Two (CW2) be adjusted from 1 August 2007 to 15 April 2007 and that he receive appropriate back pay and allowances. 2. The applicant states he is in a CW2 slot and that there are no Warrant Officer One (WO1) slots in the unit. He also reemphasizes that it was his commander’s intent to have him promoted on 15 April 2007 when he met eligibility requirements. 3. The applicant provides statements from his unit commander and unit training officer, a copy of the unit manning documents, and resubmits documents that were seen by the original board. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20070018899 on 24 April 2008. 2. The statements provided by the applicant’s commander and training officer; and an advisory opinion obtained by the Board staff from the Acting Chief, Personnel Division, National Guard Bureau (NGB) constitute new evidence which warrants consideration. 3. The statement from the applicant’s unit commander notes that the applicant reported to the unit in December 2006 and immediately made his chain of command aware of his eligibility for promotion to CW2. He states that he [unit commander] was under the impression the applicant would be promoted in April 2007, which was his full intent, and that he did not question the promotion until the paperwork never came. The commander indicates that upon investigation it was discovered that the administrative office had initially misplaced the applicant’s required paperwork and that it was subsequently returned as incomplete, and that the applicant then had to resubmit the entire packet. As a result the applicant was promoted 4 months late. The commander states he takes full responsibility for mishandling the applicant’s promotion packet. The commander confirmed the applicant was in an appropriate CW2 slot during the period in question. 4. The statement from the unit training officer confirms the unit has no WO1 positions on the unit manning document and that the applicant has been in an authorized CW2 slot since his arrival at the unit. 5. The advisory opinion from the NGB recommended the applicant’s request be approved. The opinion stated the applicant met the time in grade requirements of National Guard Regulation 600-101 (Warrant Officers - Federal Recognition and Related Personnel Actions), Table 7-1, which required a minimum time in grade of two years for promotion to CW2. The opinion noted the applicant met all requirements for promotion on 15 April 2007 and that he had submitted a promotion packet shortly after arriving at his unit. The official noted the applicant’s commander confirmed that it was his intent that the applicant be promoted on time and stated the applicant should not be penalized for the delayed promotion which was due to no fault of his own. On 21 January 2009, the applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion for information and given an opportunity to comment. The applicant did not respond. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The Board noted in its original deliberation that there was no evidence the applicant’s commander intended to promote the applicant on 15 April 2007 when he met basic eligibility requirements, or that the applicant met all the requirements for promotion on that date. 2. The information provided by the applicant now confirms that he did in fact meet promotion eligibility requirements, that his commander intended to have him promoted on that date, and that had it not been for administrative issues, the applicant would have been promoted on 15 April 2007 when he first became eligible. 3. Based on the applicant's meeting the time in grade requirements and completion of other promotion criteria for promotion to CW2, he should have been promoted to CW2 with an effective date and date of rank of 15 April 2007 (2 years from the date of his initial appointment). 4. Therefore, the applicant's records should be corrected to show he was promoted to CW2 with an effective date and date of rank of 15 April 2007, granted Federal Recognition on that date, and paid back pay and allowances as appropriate. BOARD VOTE: ___X_____ ____X____ ____X____ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant amendment of the ABCMR’s decision in Docket Number AR20070018899, dated 24 April 2008. As a result, the Board recommends that all state Army National Guard records and the Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected, as appropriate, by: a. amending his records to show he was promoted to CW2 and extended Federal Recognition in the grade of CW2, effective 15 April 2007; and b. paying the applicant any pay and allowances due as a result of these corrections. __________XXX_____________ CHAIRPERSON 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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080018023 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080018023 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1