| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Stephanie Thompkins | Analyst |
| Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction to his date of rank for chief warrant officer three (CW3) from 22 August 1996 to 19 April 1995.
APPLICANT STATES: That in accordance with National Guard (NG) Regulation 600-101, he was eligible for promotion to CW3 effective 19 April 1995. He also states that he should have been promoted with his contemporaries as evidenced by the officer evaluation report (OER) for the period 19 April 1995 to 18 April 1996. Once his unit finally initiated the paperwork in January 1996, it took 8 months, to August 1996, to traverse the state and make it to the monthly promotion board, which was an unreasonable amount of time. He submits a copy of his State promotion documents, a warrant officer advance course diploma and an OER for the period ending 18 April 1996 in support of his application.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's NG military records were not provided to the Board. Information was obtained from his Reserve military records and documentation submitted with his application that show:
He was appointed in the Reserve as a warrant officer one, with prior enlisted service, and entered on active duty effective 4 March 1980.
He was promoted to CW2 in the Army of the United States effective 4 March 1982.
He was promoted to CW2 in the Reserve effective 4 March 1983.
He was considered and not selected for promotion to CW3 by the 1990 and 1991 promotion boards.
He was honorably separated from active duty for failure of selection of permanent promotion effective 24 February 1991.
He was appointed in the Florida Army National Guard (FL ARNG) as a CW2 effective 19 April 1995.
An OER for the period 19 April 1995 through 18 April 1996 shows he received ratings of “1” in the elements of professional competence, and positive comments under professional ethics and competence. (Ratings are from 1 to 5, with 1 the highest rating). He was placed in the second block (Usually Exceeded Requirements) under Part Vc for performance, and the second block (Promote With Contemporaries) in Part Vd, for promotion potential. He was rated in the second block by his senior rater for potential evaluation. The report does not contain a senior rater profile. The senior rater’s comments are commensurate with this rating.
On 22 March 1996, his commander recommended him for promotion to CW3.
On 19 June 1996, his command recommended approval of his promotion.
On 22 July 1996, the FL ARNG, Office of The Adjutant General (TAG) requested his records be examined to determine his qualification for Federal recognition in the ARNG in the higher grade.
On 22 August 1996, the Federal Recognition Board recommended the applicant for Federal recognition for promotion effective on the same date.
On 30 September 1996 the applicant was extended Federal recognition by the National Guard Bureau (NGB) to CW3 effective 22 August 1996.
NG Regulation 600-101, chapter 7-1 prescribes the policies and procedures for Federal recognition of promotion of warrant officers in ARNG. The regulation specifies warrant officers of the ARNG are appointed and promoted by the States and the State action must be Federally recognized. The regulation does not specify the time required for Federal recognition boards or for promotion in the warrant officer grades. State TAG’s manage warrant officer promotions in accordance with this regulation.
The regulation also provides that a warrant officer who has been promoted by the State and extended Federal recognition in the higher grade will be promoted concurrently to the higher grade in the Reserve of the Army with assignment to the ARNG.
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. In view of all of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to correction to his date of rank for CW3. He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.
2. The applicant has not shown that his promotion was unfair or unreasonably delayed. He appears to have been properly considered and found qualified for promotion by a Federal recognition board and promoted based upon extension of Federal recognition by the NGB.
3. The Board notes the applicant’s assertion that he would have been promoted on 19 April 1995 based on an OER completed subsequent to that date, and is not supportive of his contentions.
4. The Board also notes that pertinent regulations do not mandate a recommendation or promotion of a warrant officer for promotion in the ARNG.
5. 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.
6. 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
_sac____ _jtm____ _kwl___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002070458 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020507 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 131.00 |
| 2. | 131.01 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069153C070402
DAIG records state essentially that a request, dated 4 August 1998, was submitted to First United States Army [hereafter referred to as First Army] to review the case of the applicant to "determine whether [the applicant] should undergo a withdrawal of federal recognition board as contemplated by the regulation. The purpose of the withdrawal of Federal Recognition Board as stated in the board transcript was to consider whether or not to recommend withdrawal of the applicant's Federal...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002918C070206
The applicant requests, in effect, promotion to chief warrant officer (CW2) with a Federal Recognition date and date of rank of 1 February 2002. The applicant was advised to submit a request to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records to change his rank and effective date. Warrant officers may be examined for promotion not earlier than 3 months in advance of completing the prescribed promotion requirements so that, if recommended by a Federal Recognition Board (FRB), promotion may...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065886C070421
The applicant's service personnel records show he was appointed in the ORARNG and was granted temporary Federal Recognition on 29 June 1992. There is no evidence in the applicant's service personnel records which shows the June 1992 request for Federal Recognition was denied by the Chief, NGB. c. Correct all personnel and pay records to show that the individual concerned was appointed in the ORARNG, in the grade of CW2, with the MOS 550A, effective 29 June 1992 and has served in that grade...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008900
The applicant requests correction of his military records to show his date of rank to chief warrant officer three (CW3) as 15 May 2006. The applicant provides, in support of his application, copies of: a. email communications between himself and the MN ARNG; b. ABCMR Record of Proceedings, Docket Number AR20060008684; c. Request for Constructive Credit for Warrant Officer Education, dated 12 September 2006; d. Table 2-3 (Warrant officer time in grade and military education requirements),...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089376C070403
In addition to addressing the applicant's other contentions, the OSRB noted that, although the rating period of the first contested OER was under 90 days, Military Personnel Message 97-099 waived the minimum rating period time requirements for transitioning to the new OER system and the closeout OER. Army Regulation 623-105, the version in effect at the time of the applicant's first contested OER, also stated that an OER would be referred to the rated officer for acknowledgment and comment...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120003549
The applicant requests adjustment of his date of rank (DOR) for promotion to chief warrant officer two (CW2), from 26 September 2007 to 19 November 2006. The opinion further states that his promotion was delayed based on his performance as reflected in his referred OER for the period 1 November 2005 through 31 May 2006. Included in these requirements is that the warrant officer must be recommended by his immediate commander.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002400
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 28 August 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120002400 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant provides: * self-authored statements * Promotion Memorandum, National Guard Bureau (NGB), dated 1 July 2009 * Memorandum, dated 25 October 2006, from the Operations Officer, Property Accountability Inspection, Office of the Inspector General * Special Orders Number 161AR, NGB, Washington, DC, dated 1 July 2009 * National Guard Regulation 600-101 (Warrant...
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 | CY2012 | 20120004374
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 September 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120004374 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The available records do not contain any indication that the applicant was serving in a CW3 position or considered by any promotion boards following his promotion to CW2. However, with a 6-year TIG requirement, the earliest the applicant could have been considered eligible for promotion was 3 December 1999.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080013130
BOARD DATE: 4 August 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080013130 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his date of rank (DOR) for promotion to chief warrant officer three (CW3) be adjusted to 27 August 2003. The applicant states that his promotion to the rank of CW3 was delayed due to overdue officer evaluation reports (OERs) that were not completed in a timely manner and prevented him from being considered by a Federal Recognition Board (FRB).