| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | |
| Mr. John P. Infante | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That, as an exception, his service in the Army Reserve (USAR) as a Warrant Officer be applied to his service in the Army National Guard (ARNG).
APPLICANT STATES: That, while in WOCS, he heard he would be eligible to be promoted to the rank of Chief Warrant Officer 2 (CW2) upon graduation of WOBC (Warrant Officer Basic Course). Everyone in the course graduated as a Warrant Officer 1 (WO1). He provides one page of National Guard Bureau (NGB) Regulation 600-101.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records were only partially provided and attempts to locate pertinent records were to no avail. The available records show:
On 15 December 1968, the applicant enlisted in the USAR. He was promoted to master sergeant (pay grade E-8) and subsequently appointed first sergeant (pay grade E-8).
On 7 July 1995, he was appointed to the rank of WO1, in the USAR.
During the period 22 July to 2 August 1996, the applicant attended the Food Service Technician WOBC as a WO1.
There are no records for the applicant from 2 August 1996 to present.
At some point, the applicant was separated from the USAR and appointed in the ARNG.
On 5 April 2001, the Chief, Personnel Division, National Guard Bureau (NGB) opined that, under NGB Regulation 600-101, an individual in the ranks of MSG (E8) through CSM (E9) who is eligible for MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) training may be promoted to CW2 after completion of the WOCS (Warrant Officer Candidate School) and the WOBC. The Adjutant General of the state of Connecticut was not required to promote the applicant at an earlier date. There is no evidence to support his claims of error or injustice.
On 17 May 2001, the NGB opinion was provided to the applicant for his acknowledgement/rebuttal. He did not respond.
NGB Regulation 600-101, shows that enlisted soldiers in the rank of master sergeant (MSG) (E-8) through command sergeant major (CSM) (E-9) who have served a minimum of 2 consecutive years as an E8/E9 may be appointed to CW2 in one of two ways: (1) if they are certified by the MOS proponent prior to the date of initial appointment or (2) after completion of WOCS and WOBC.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a presumption of regularity applies that the records of the individual concerned are correct.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion, it is concluded:
1. There is no evidence and the applicant has not provided any evidence to support his contention that he should have been promoted upon completion of WOCS and WOBC in the USAR. The NGB regulation provided gives that authority to The Adjutant General of the state in question; however, the applicant was not a member of the ARNG at the time of his completion of those courses and therefore it becomes moot.
2. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that her discharge was conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.
3. This Board operates under the standard of presumption of regularity in governmental affairs. The standard states, in effect, that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board must presume that all actions taken by the military were proper. There is nothing in the records or in the evidence submitted by the applicant that overcomes this presumption.
4. 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
_jpi____ _rjw____ _bje___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001053214 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010802 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 102.0700 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005458
In the case of an applicant being found qualified for Federal recognition as a CW2, in accordance with paragraph 2-10c(2) of this regulation, except for the successful completion of WOCS and Department of the Army certification, the following statement will be entered on the record of proceedings (NGB Form 89): "the applicant is qualified for appointment as a warrant officer in the Army National Guard and is extended temporary Federal recognition as a warrant officer WO1 as provided by NGR...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110002412
He states he/his: * was an E-9 and successfully completed both the Warrant Officer Candidate School (WOCS) and the Warrant Officer Basic Course (WOBC) * was military occupational specialty (MOS) qualified; therefore, he was eligible for promotion upon his graduation from WOBC on 13 September 2007 * command should have cut his promotion orders accordingly * his National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 89 (Proceedings of a Federal Recognition Examining Board) should have been properly annotated to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018149
The applicant requests her date of rank (DOR) for promotion to chief warrant officer two (CW2) in the Georgia Army National Guard (GAARNG) be amended to the date she completed the Warrant Officer (WO) Basic Course (WOBC). National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-101 (WO Federal Recognition and Related Personnel Actions), paragraph 2-10c (in effect at the time) essentially states a Soldier in the rank of MSG may be promoted to CW2 in one of two ways, after first having served in the rank for 2...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130006623
c. Paragraph 9-15b(6) states in the case of an applicant being found qualified for Federal recognition as a CW2 in accordance with paragraph 2-10c(2), except for the successful completion of WOCS and Department of the Army MOS certification (i.e., completion of WOBC), the following statement will be entered on the NGB Form 89: The applicant is qualified for appointment as a warrant officer in the Army National Guard and is extended temporary Federal recognition as a Warrant Officer, W1, as...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018199
The evidence of record shows that the applicant was granted temporary Federal recognition effective 7 March 2007 upon his completion of WOCS and execution of an oath of office. Subsequently, the applicant's Federal recognition packet was considered by a second GAARNG Federal Recognition Board on 13 December 2007 and the applicant executed a second oath of office on that date. Based on the recommendations of the second GAARNG Federal Recognition Board, the NGB issued orders awarding the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012994C071029
NGB Special Orders Number 8 AR dated 12 January 2006 granted the applicant Federal Recognition as a WO1 effective 28 October 2005. NGR 600-101, paragraph 9-15b(6) states in the case of an applicant being found qualified for Federal Recognition as a CW2 in accordance with paragraph 2-10c(2), except for the successful completion of WOCS and Department of the Army MOS certification (i.e., completion of WOBC), the following statement will be entered on the NGB Form 89: “The applicant is...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110021677
Special Orders Number 170 AR, dated 27 July 2011, shows the applicant was granted permanent Federal recognition for his initial appointment as a WO1 with an effective date of 23 November 2010. c. National Guard Bureau Policy Memorandum #07-226, subject: Policy to Appoint Sergeant First Class (SFC) to Chief Warrant Officer Two (CW2), dated 14 August 2007, states: (1) Effective on the date of this memorandum, States are authorized to appoint SFC (E-7) to the grade of CW2 if they meet the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014967
The Acting Chief, Personnel Division, NGB stated that the applicant was appointed WO1 on 7 March 2006 and on 7 March 2008, he met the time in grade requirements of National Guard Regulation 600-101, Table 7-1, which states that the minimum time in grade and mandatory board maximum years in the lower grade for promotion to CW2 is 2 years. The evidence of record shows the applicant was appointed as a WO1 with a date of rank of 7 March 2006 and based on the requirement for completion of 2...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001308
The applicant requests correction of his record to show he was extended Federal recognition on 1 August 2008 as his initial effective date of appointment and date of rank (DOR) to warrant officer one (WO1) to allow for promotion to chief warrant officer two (CW2) on 24 September 2010. As a means of clarification she offers the following information pertaining to the applicant: * he executed oaths of office and signed a DA Form 71 and an NGB Form 337 for his initial appointment in the OHARNG...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019347
The applicant requests correction of his date of rank (DOR) to chief warrant officer two (CW2) in the New York Army National Guard (NYARNG) from 29 January 2013 to 20 August 2012. He further contends his DOR should be adjusted in accordance with (lAW) the NGB PPOM Number 13-006, dated 6 February 2013, which states in part, "Implement the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for WO promotions to CW2 which removed the requirement for a Federal Recognition Board (FRB) for promotion...