| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Stephanie Thompkins | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III | Member | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member |
2. The applicant requests that his date of rank for chief warrant officer four (CW4) be adjusted to 17 March 2000.
3. The applicant states that due to several administrative errors, through no fault of his own or his commander, he was not promoted in a timely manner. He also states that he was advised to attend the Warrant Officer Staff Course (WOSC) for promotion and he was not required to attend since he attained 3 years time in grade as a CW3 effective 1 October 1998. He was placed in a CW4 position effective 17 March 2000 and this is the date he was eligible for promotion. He submits copies of his National Guard Bureau Forms 0122E for promotion to CW3 and CW4, his Service School Academic Evaluation Report, dated 2 February 2001, and National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-101, table 7-2 with interim change 101 in support of his application.
4. The applicant’s military records were not provided to the Board. Information herein was obtained from documentation submitted by the applicant that shows he was promoted to CW3 effective 12 February 1995 while serving as a member of the Kentucky Army National Guard.
5. He completed the WOSC effective 2 February 2001 and was promoted to CW4 effective 21 January 2001, with a date of rank of the same date.
6. NGR 600-101 specifies that completion of the WOSC and 3 years time in grade as a CW3 is required for promotion to CW4.
7. NGR 600-101, Interim Change 101, implemented on 1 October 1996 specifies that effective 1 October 1998, warrant officers, who on this date have attained 3 years time in grade, are not required to complete the WOSC.
8. Current promotion policy specifies that antedating of either the effective date of promotion or promotion eligibility date will not entitle a Reserve warrant officer to increased pay and allowances.
9. The Chief, Personnel Division, Departments of the Army and the Air Force National Guard Bureau, expressed the opinion that the applicant provided a self-authored statement that he was not promoted when he first became eligible. Unfortunately, he did not provide substantive evidence to support his claim. The supporting statement from his present commander dated 13 March 2001, merely requests that the date of rank be changed. Again, there is nothing to support a claim of either error or injustice. However, the applicant’s previous commander provided a statement on 12 July 2001, that the applicant was qualified for promotion when he first became eligible. Time in grade is just one of the many requirements necessary to be promoted. Solely meeting the requirement does
not mean one will be promoted in a position vacancy. After the requirements have been met, the commander must recommend the officer for promotion. An interim change to a regulation was overlooked causing the applicant to apply for a school that was not necessary for a position vacancy promotion. It was recommended relief be granted as requested, if the applicant’s command can show he met all requirements of NGR 600-101, on the date he completed the time-in-grade criteria, and in effect, denial of the application if the applicant’s command cannot show he met all requirements of NGR 600-101, on the date he completed the time-in-grade criteria.
10. The opinion was forwarded to the applicant for his acknowledgment/rebuttal on 30 July 2001. He concurred on 6 August 2001.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant is entitled to adjustment of his date of rank for CW4 to 17 March 2000, the date he was assigned to the higher-grade position.
2. The Board agrees with the National Guard Bureau that the applicant has not provided substantive evidence to support his contention that he was not promoted in a timely manner due to several administrative errors. However, the applicant was eligible for the promotion when he was placed in a CW4 position effective 17 March 2000, with more than 3 years time in grade in the CW3 rank.
3. Notwithstanding the opinion from the National Guard Bureau, the Board notes that the applicant did not request correction to his date of rank to 1 October 1998, his time in grade date; therefore, his command will not be requested to show he met all the requirements for promotion on that date or otherwise prior to 17 March 2000.
4. It is also noted that the applicant was not required to complete WOSC for promotion to CW4 because he met the time in grade for this promotion based on an interim change to CW4 promotion policy. The applicant completed the course after his assignment to a CW4 position and completion was not one of the requirements he needed to meet for promotion to CW4.
5. The Board further notes that any correction to the applicant’s promotion eligibility date does not entitle him, as a CW4, to increased pay and allowances.
6. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing the individual concerned was promoted to chief warrant officer four with a date of rank of 17 March 2000.
BOARD VOTE:
__jns___ _le_____ _tbr____ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
John N. Slone
______________________
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2001055129 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011220 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 131.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090018084
The NGB stated that when the applicant was promoted the education waiver provision had expired and the applicant was not qualified in the MOS for which he was being promoted into. The NGB states that the applicant was promoted to CW4 without having completed the required training (WOSC) or time in grade (TIG). Army Regulation 135155, Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers, Table 23, Warrant officer...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070017326
The applicant requests his promotion date to Chief Warrant Officer Four (CW4) be backdated to, in effect, 9 March 2007, the date he became eligible for promotion. To be considered for Federal Recognition and concurrent Reserve of the Army promotion following State promotion to fill a unit vacancy, an ARNG warrant officer must be in an active status and duty MOS qualified; be medically fit in accordance with AR 40-501 and meet the height and weight standards prescribed in AR 600-9; have...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010157
The NGB recommends approval of the applicant's request to adjust his promotion effective date and date of rank to 1 October 2006 based on the applicant having been enrolled in the WOSC and having been removed from the course list due to mobilization in support of OIF. The evidence shows that the applicant was scheduled to attend WOSC on 10 July 2005 and had met all the requirements for promotion to CW4. Through no fault of the applicant he was not able to attend the WOSC and therefore, he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015976
He requested and received a correction to his military records and in September 2003 was promoted to CW3 with a date of rank of 8 March 1998. When he was not promoted to CW4 on 8 March 2004, he inquired and was told that he needed to complete the WOSC to be eligible for promotion consideration. However, the NGB denied his request and so informed the applicant that he was required to complete this course of study prior to being promoted.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014532
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 30 December 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080014532 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests his promotion date and date of rank from Chief Warrant Officer Three (CW3) to Chief Warrant Officer Four (CW4) be adjusted from 11 July 2008 to 9 June 2008 with all back pay and allowances. As a result, the Board recommends that all State Army National Guard records and all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110008370
The applicant provides: * a DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), dated 12 October 2007 * Orders 225-802, dated 13 August 2010, issued by the Tennessee Army National Guard (TNARNG), Joint Force Headquarters (JFH) * Orders, 242-800, and Orders, 242-802, both dated 30 August 2010, issued by TNARNG, JFH * an ARNG Position and Paragraph Number sheet for CW5 * an NGB Form 89 (Proceedings of a Federal Recognition Examining Board), dated 12 August 2010 * an NGB memorandum,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120000479
The applicant provides: * October 2001 USAR Honorable Discharge Certificate * 1994 Selection for Promotion memorandum * 1995 Eligibility for Promotion Memorandum and Endorsement * 2001 Non-Selection Notification of Promotion * 2010 DA Form 71 (Oath of Office Military Personnel) * National Guard Bureau (NGB) Special Orders Number 189 AR * Orders 224-1126, issued by the TXARNG, dated 12 August 2010 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. b. Paragraph 7-4 (Computation of promotion service to determine...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110018968
The applicant states: * Prior to the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Army National Guard (ARNG) officers were promoted by the Chief, National Guard Bureau (NGB) * After the 2011 NDAA, the authority was elevated from the Secretary of the service to the President of the United States * When the new policy was signed into law, many officials were unaware of the significant changes it entailed * The change led to a delay by the NGB in processing promotion actions * In his case, a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110020445
The applicant states: * Prior to the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Army National Guard (ARNG) officers were promoted by the Chief, National Guard Bureau (NGB) * After the 2011 NDAA, the authority was elevated from the Secretary of the service to the President of the United States * When the new policy was signed into law, many officials were unaware of the significant changes it entailed * The change led to a delay by the NGB in processing promotion actions * In his case, a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070011789
On 17 May 2005, by memorandum addressed to the President, Federal Recognition Board, PRARNG, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Joint Forces Headquarters, PRARNG, concurred with the immediate commander's recommendation and requested the applicant's records be examined to determine his qualifications for Federal Recognition in the higher grade. On 15 June 2005, by memorandum addressed to the Adjutant General's Office, PRARNG, the President, Federal Recognition Board, PRARNG, stated...