RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:  8 July 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004100377


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Stephanie Thompkins           |     |Analyst              |


  The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Kathleen Newman               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Gail Wire                     |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. William Powers                |     |Member               |

      The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests correction to his promotion date and Federal
Recognition date for chief warrant officer two (CW2) from 1 September 2003
to 13 September 2002.

2.  The applicant states that his promotion package was returned numerous
times by higher headquarters, each time for a different reason.  These
reasons are not specified in National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-101.  He
became eligible for promotion to CW2 on 8 August 2002, according to chapter

2-10, paragraph b(3).

3.  The applicant also states in his timeline memorandum that he received
his State promotion orders for CW2 on 26 August 2003 and Federal promotion
orders for CW2 on 6 September 2003.

4.  The applicant provides a timeline memorandum, excerpts from NGR 600-
101, his Recommendation for Promotion Memorandums, a Florida Army National
Guard (FLARNG) Reference Elimination of Federal Recognition Board for CW2
Memorandum, his Army Physical Fitness Test (AFPT) Scorecard, his
Cardiovascular Screening, his Report of Medical History, his Security
Clearance, his Service School Academic Evaluation Report, his basic course
completion certificate, two of his Officer Evaluation Reports, his Bachelor
of Science and Master of Education Certificates, and his official
photograph.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's records were not provided to the Board.  Information
herein was obtained from documentation submitted by the applicant that
shows he was serving as and rated as a major with the FLARNG for the period
1 December 2000 through 1 September 2001.

2.  The Officer Evaluation Report submitted by the applicant for the period
28 October 2001 through 30 September 2002 shows he was serving as and rated
as a warrant officer one with the FLARNG with a date of rank of 28 October
2001.

3.  He completed the warrant officer basic course on 23 August 2002.

4.  On 16 April 2003, the FLARNG, Office of the Adjutant General issued a
Reference Elimination Federal Recognition Board for CW2 Memorandum to all
battalion commanders and S-1 personnel.  The memorandum advised that the
reference to the requirement for Federal Recognition Board action was


eliminated and promotion to CW2 would be based on administrative review of
records, submission of promotion recommendation, and preparation of a
request for Federal Recognition.  The authorization eliminating the Federal
Recognition Board action was cancelled.  Accordingly, all warrant officer
one promotion actions would require Federal Recognition Board action.
Promotion recommendations must be forwarded to the FLARNG Headquarters so
as to meet the established due date for the monthly Federal Recognition
Board and contain the following:  letter of recommendation, height and
weight certificate, APFT scorecard, official photograph, security
verification letter, initial medical review/annual medical certificate,
military education, and copy of high school diploma or transcript of higher
education.

5.  On 5 May 2003, the applicant's company and battalion commanders
recommended him for promotion to CW2 with submission of the required
documents verifying he met all the qualifications.

6.  Based on the required 2 years time in grade, his promotion eligibility
date (PED) for CW2 was 28 October 2003.

7.  NGR 600-101 (Warrant Officers-Federal Recognition and Related Personnel
Actions) provides procedures for processing all applications for Federal
Recognition.  This regulation specifies that a warrant officer must
complete the minimum years of promotion service to attain eligibility for
promotion and receive Federal Recognition in the higher grade.  Promotion
to CW2 requires completion of 2 years in the lower grade and the warrant
officer basic course.

8.  NGR 600-101 also specifies that the appointment and promotion of
warrant officers are functions of the state concerned.  These appointments
and promotions must be federally recognized.  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, promotion may be effected on the date the promotion
requirements are met.  A Federal Recognition Board convening to examine a
warrant officer who has passed his/her PED may, if the officer is
recommended and determined fully qualified on his/her PED, consider
granting temporary Federal Recognition retroactive to that date.  The
temporary Federal Recognition can not be granted earlier than 90 days from
the date the Federal Recognition Board convened.

9.  NGR 600-101, chapter 2-10, paragraph b(3) provides that commissioned
officers predetermined to be only qualified for entry into warrant officer
training (meaning they must attend a warrant officer basic course) will be
initially appointed in the grade of warrant officer one.  Commissioned
officers may be considered for promotion to the grade of CW2 when certified
by the military occupational specialty (MOS) proponent, provided they
served a minimum of 2 years in an active status in the grade of captain or
above.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not
entitled to correction to his promotion and Federal Recognition date for
CW2.

2.  The applicant's contentions that he became eligible for promotion to
CW2 on 8 August 2002 and his promotion packet was returned numerous times
have been noted.  However, as of 8 August 2002, he had not completed the
minimum 2 years time in grade.  His PED for CW2 was 28 October 2003.  In
May 2003, his commander properly submitted the recommendation and required
documentation in advance of his PED for examination by a Federal
Recognition Board and promotion on the date the promotion requirements were
met.

3.  It is also noted that the NGR 600-101 paragraph cited by the applicant
provides for promotion to CW2 for officers who have been certified by the
MOS proponent, provided they served a minimum of 2 years in an active
status in the grade of captain or above.  While the applicant provides an
officer evaluation report that indicates he served as a major with the
FLARNG for the rating period 1 December 2000 to 1 September 2001, his
previous status only entitled him to promotion consideration to CW2.  It is
further noted that the documentation does not show he served in the grade
of major in an active status for a minimum of 2 years prior to being
appointed a warrant officer one.

4.  It is concluded that there was no administrative error denying the
applicant the requirement of Federal Recognition and promotion to CW2.  The
applicant was properly promoted to CW2 when the promotion requirements were
met and he has not shown otherwise.

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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__kn___  __gw____  __wp____  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.




            ___Kathleen Newman___
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004100377                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040708                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |131.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]