IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 31 July 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120008134 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 that his Army National Guard (ARNG) warrant officer (WO) promotion date of rank and effective date to chief warrant officer two (CW2) be corrected to 8 April 2011. 2. The applicant states his unit and State personnel offices did not process his promotion properly. 3. The applicant provides in support of his request copies of a memorandum from his unit commander, dated 20 June 2011; State ARNG promotion orders with an effective date of 8 April 2011; and a State Adjutant General's memorandum, dated 6 April 2012. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant is an Ohio ARNG WO. His unit recommended him for promotion to the rank of CW2 on 20 June 2011. 2. Ohio National Guard Orders 179-907, dated 28 June 2011, promoted the applicant to CW2 and his date of rank and effective date was the date the Chief, National Guard Bureau extended him Federal recognition. 3. His date of rank as a CW2 is 11 February 2012. 4. A Memorandum from an Ohio Adjutant General's personnel officer, dated 6 April 2012, explained that the State failed to process the applicant's case in a timely manner and suggested that his promotion be back dated to either 20 June 2011 or to his original promotion eligibility date of 8 April 2011. 5. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1211 (Officers: ARNG of the United States) states when an officer of the ARNG to whom temporary Federal recognition has been extended is appointed as a Reserve for service as a member of the ARNG of the U.S., his appointment shall bear the date of the temporary recognition and shall be considered to have been accepted and effective on that date. 6. National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-101 (WO's - Federal Recognition and Related Personnel Actions) prescribes policies and procedures for ARNG WO personnel management. Chapter 7 states that promotion of WO's in the ARNG is a function of the State. As in original appointments, a WO promoted by State authority has a State status in the higher grade under which to function. However, to be extended Federal recognition in the higher grade, the officer must satisfy the requirements for this promotion. Promotions will be based on the Department of the Army proponent duty MOS certification via satisfactory completion or constructive credit of appropriate level of military education, time in grade, demonstrated technical and tactical competence, and potential for service in the next higher grade as determined by a Federal Recognition Board. 7. NGB Policy Memorandum 11-015, Subject: Federal Recognition of WO's in the ARNG, dated 14 June 2011, states that ARNG WO's are initially appointed and are also promoted by the State or Territory in which the officer is assigned. The Chief, NGB, reviews and approves those actions. 8. In January 2011 the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) changed the WO promotion protocol causing a backlog. These changes, codified in Title 10, U.S. Code, sections 571b and 12241b, introduced requirements that all WO appointments and promotions to chief WO grades in the ARNG must be made by the President of the United States. As a result, effective 7 January 2011, all initial appointments of WO's and promotion to higher grades, by warrant or commission, will be issued by the President. Requests for appointment will be staffed through the Department of the Army (delegated to the Secretary of Defense), Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1. This requirement may still add 90 days or more to the process for approval for appointments or promotions to be completed. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's unit and the Ohio ARNG state the applicant's promotion was delayed because they mishandled the case. However, if his case had been handled as they claim it should, it would still have been delayed by the Federalization of the process. 2. As a result of the 2011 NDAA, the promotion of a WO1 to CW2 is now issued by the President of the U.S. and delegated to the Secretary of Defense. a. The delay in the applicant's promotion resulted from a statutory change in the procedures for the promotion of WO's that was mandated by the 2011 NDAA that WO's be placed on a scroll and staffed to the President (delegated to the Secretary of Defense) for approval. The law took effect on 7 January 2011. There followed a period of time during which the procedures for processing WO appointment and promotion scrolls were developed and refined. b. Although this process was modeled on the existing process of scrolling commissioned officer appointments and promotions there was still a period during which the WO scrolling process was being perfected. This development process resulted in the delay of the promotions of all ARNG WO's recommended for promotion during the months immediately following the enactment of the scrolling requirements. c. The delay in question was not the result of an error or an injustice as much as it was the inherent consequence of elevating the appointment and promotion authority for WO's to such a high level. While it is true the processing time has been materially reduced as the service learned how to streamline the new process, the fact remains that the delay is an organic feature of the new scheme mandated by Congress and not an error or an injustice specific to the applicant. 3. In view of the foregoing evidence and the change in law, the applicant's effective date of promotion seems appropriate and reasonable and should not change. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ 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 that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. __________X_____________ 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) AR20120008134 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120008134 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1