APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his military records be corrected to reflect a retroactive promotion to chief warrant officer five (CW5) and that his previous active status pay and his current retired pay be adjusted to reflect the promotion.
APPLICANT STATES: That he has exhausted all administrative channels in seeking the foregoing corrections to his records.
COUNSEL CONTENDS: That the applicant should have been promoted to CW5 effective at least 31 days prior to 7 July 1993, the date he applied for retirement. Instead, he was retired as a CW4. The applicants rights to timely promotion to CW5 were materially prejudiced through no fault of his own because of inadequate notice, delay, arbitrary and capricious decisions denying favorable action, and an overall lack of consideration on the part of the Army to an officer twice selected for CW5.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was promoted to CW4 effective 9 July 1976. His mandatory removal date from an active USAR status was established as 31 July 1993. He was placed on the retired list as of 7 July 1993 in the grade of CW4 with over 40 years of service.
On 22 June 1992 the applicant was notified by the US Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) that a reserve component selection board had selected him for promotion to the grade of CW5. However, before the promotion could be effectuated the PERSCOM voided the promotion notification due to additional administrative requirements that were established for promotion to CW5.
On 7 December 1992 he was again notified that he had been selected for promotion to CW5 by a reserve component selection board. Requirements for promotion included that he be in an active status, meet time in grade requirements, be medically qualified for retention and meet the standards of the Army weight control program. Additionally, he was required to be assigned to a duty position authorized the grade of MW/W5 and have completed the Master Warrant Officer Training Course (MWOTC).
The applicant readily met all requirements for promotion except for assignment to a CW5 position and completion of the MWOTC. After some initial confusion the position he occupied was designated a CW5 position. This left only the requirement to complete the MWOTC in order to qualify for promotion.
On 3 June 1993 the applicant telephonically contacted the warrant officer branch and requested permission to attend the next MWOTC. He was advised that the course was taught only once a year and the next one would take place between 7 and 18 June 1993. Although he was facing an MRD in July 1993, he was denied permission to attend the course because the class was full and funding was a problem. On 25 June 1993 he forwarded a request to waive the two-week school requirement for promotion. The request was favorably endorsed by his chain of command but disapproved by the PERSCOM.
In its response, the PERSCOM contended that there were no regulatory provisions to waive the school requirement before promotion and that an exception to the requirement in his case was not warranted. The response went on to say that the applicant had an MRD of 31 July 1993 thus, even if an exception were granted he could not retire in the higher grade before his MRD (he would have had to serve at least 31 days in the new grade to retire in that grade).
On 21 July 1993 the applicant was advised by his higher headquarters that his MRD was 31 July 1993 and he was required to exercise an option to transfer to the retired reserve or accept discharge from the USAR. On 27 July 1993 he opted to transfer to the retired reserve.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. The applicants inability to complete the prerequisites for promotion to CW5 before reaching his MRD were the result of a combination of factors none of which appear to be intentionally designed to obstruct his promotion. The revised administrative guidance for promotion combined with the lateness of their publication, in terms of proximity to his MRD, and the brief time remaining until retirement, did not permit sufficient time for him to complete all requirements.
2. While there may have been an oversight in announcing the June 1993 MWOTC, which is not altogether clear from the record, the PERSCOM was not wrong in denying his last minute request to attend a completely full class or by declining to waive the requirement to complete it before he could be promoted.
3. While the Board empathizes with the applicant, it sees no actions that were directed against him that would not also have been applicable to other individuals in similar circumstances. It is indeed unfortunate that an impending MRD denied an obviously talented and dedicated soldier the opportunity to serve and retire as a CW5; however, counsels contentions to the contrary, the Board does not see the arbitrary and capricious actions intended to undermine his chance for promotion.
4. USAR promotions, unlike active component promotions, are by design event driven occurrences. The requirement that the officer occupy the higher graded duty position before attending training or qualifying for promotion appears to be a logical and rational requirement when considering the limited assignment flexibility in the USAR environment.
5. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.
BOARD VOTE:
GRANT
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
DENY APPLICATION
Karl F. Schneider
Acting Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100010265
The applicant requests reconsideration of the Board's denial of his previous request as follows: a. reinstatement to active duty until he can obtain a new surgical appointment and complete his surgery and recuperation; b. cancellation of his retirement until he has completed his surgery and recuperation; c. restoration of pay and allowances that the Army recouped as an indebtedness prorated through 13 June 2008, the date that the unexecuted portion of his active duty orders A-06-810144 were...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017881
On 29 February 2008, HRC-St. Louis officials requested revocation of the applicants mobilization Orders M-10-702757 due to the fact that he would turn age 62 on 8 April 2008 and must be removed from active service not later than 60 days after the date in which he turns age 62. On 14 April 2008, HRC-St. Louis published Orders C-04-807106, releasing the applicant from active duty by reason of completion of 20 or more years of Reserve duty and reassigning him to the Retired Reserve on 7 June...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110000581
The applicant requests promotion to chief warrant officer five (CW5). He had over 18 years of time in grade (TIG) as a chief warrant officer four (CW4), completed the Warrant Officer Senior Staff Course, selected by the State Adjutant General, and performed CW5 duties as the Detachment Commander, Detachment 25 (DET 25), OSA (Operational Support Airlift), Tennessee Army National Guard (TNARNG), Smyrna, TN, for 19 months (February 2008 through August 2009). The applicant provides: * a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100025158
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 August 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100025158 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. He was promoted to chief warrant officer three on 20 August 1993 and chief warrant officer four (CW4) on 8 October 1998. In his rebuttal, the applicant stated: * He was passed over for promotion, contrary to governing regulations * He was senior by date of rank and more educationally qualified than others * The IG agreed that the SCARNG broke the regulation * The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014636
The applicant was appointed as a warrant officer one (WO1) unit personnel technician in the South Carolina Army National Guard (SCARNG) on 22 September 1987. The applicant's official records indicate that he completed the Reserve Component Senior Warrant Officer Training Course by correspondence in 1993. It also provides that effective 1 April 1995, all warrant officers (civil service technicians and traditional warrant officers) may complete Reserve Component (RC) configured courses...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072226C070403
The applicant states, in effect, that he was promoted to the rank of CW5 and served in that rank for 2 ½ years before it was revoked. Although the Board can find no specific language in the available evidence indicating that his promotion to the rank of CW5 was conditional upon his successful completion of a MOS-producing course of instruction, the order that directed his promotion specified that he was being promoted in MOS 155E, the MOS of a fixed wing aviator. In view of the foregoing...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000436
The applicant provides: * Amended promotion orders changing his date of rank and effective date to 14 August 2012 * 8 October 2013 email from CW5 P------ J W----- at the Office of the Chief of Army Reserve (OCAR) * U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) Memorandum, dated 31 July 2012, on Reserve Component CW5 competitive categories with five enclosures * Memorandum from Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff G1, instructions for the FY 13 WO-5 promotion board with enclosures * 15 December 2013...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065668C070421
In December 2001 the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) informed the applicant’s command at Fort Bliss that the applicant would be separated from active duty [as a two time non select for promotion] for the purpose of enlisting in the Regular Army. Army Regulation 600-8-24, which establishes the policies and procedures for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers, states that chief warrant officers on the active duty list twice non-selected for promotion to the rank of CW3,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050017983C070206
The applicant also states that prior to his retirement, in December 2002, the unit had a drill with all members of the unit present, including some that he had not seen before. The USARC determined that the applicant filled a colonel position at the State Department unit while serving as a lieutenant colonel. Crediting the applicant with a qualifying year, as discussed above, and payment of the difference in pay between a lieutenant colonel and colonel for creditable periods of service...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069736C070402
A 1989 USAR Standby Advisory Board reviewed his record and selected him for promotion to MAJ. A 1989 Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) Proceedings directed that his discharge be voided, that he be promoted to MAJ, that he be credited with qualifying service for Reserve retirement, and that an explanation be placed in his records to show that the resulting gap in Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs) was due to no fault of the officer. On 18 October 1988, ARPERCEN issued...