RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        3 November 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050003385


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Howard D. Thomas              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John P. Infante               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Carmen Duncan                 |     |Member               |

      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 that the effective date of his promotion be
adjusted to 6 January 2005.

2.  The applicant states he was selected for promotion to Chief Warrant
Officer Two (CW2) when he was assigned to the Individual Ready Reserve.  He
was subsequently assigned to a troop program unit (TPU) vacancy effective
          23 September 2004.  The TPU was not able to submit the request
for promotion due to unit deployment, the holiday schedule late in December
and early January, and his being ordered to active duty for training (ADT)
the first week of January 2005.

3.  The applicant provides his promotion memorandum; his TPU assignment
orders; extracts from Army Regulation 135-155; his appointment memorandum;
an approval for constructive credit for the Warrant Officer Basic Course;
his ADT orders; an ARPC Form 155-R (Promotion Qualification Statement);
emails dated 20 December 2004, 21 January 2005, and 25 February 2005; his
oath of office; a DA Form 4497 (Interim (Abbreviated) Flying Duty Medical
Examination); a DA Form 705 (Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard); six
leave and earnings statements; and a 15 January 2005 memorandum from the
Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff G-1, Subject:  Amendment to Policy –
Promotion of Second Lieutenants (1LT) to First Lieutenant (1LT) and Warrant
Officer One (WO1) to Chief Warrant Officer Two (CW2).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  After having had prior enlisted service, the applicant was appointed a
WO1   in the U. S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 6 January 2003.  On 22 April
2004, he   was granted constructive credit for the Warrant Office Basic
Course.  Effective  23 September 2004, he was released from the USAR
Control Group (Reinforcement) and assigned to a TPU.

2.  On orders dated 15 December 2004, the applicant was ordered to ADT with
a report date of not later than 5 January 2005 for 93 days.

3.  The applicant provided an ARPC Form 155-R, dated 20 December 2004,
which shows he had been notified of his selection for promotion and elected
to accept promotion.  The commander was to review the form and verify the
information on the form was correct and complete (including information the
applicant had been assigned to a CW2 position on 23 September 2004);
however, the form provided does not contain the commander's signature.

4.  On 22 February 2005, the Office of Promotions, Reserve Components, U.
S. Army Human Resources Command (USAHRC) issued a memorandum promoting the
applicant to CW2 effective 22 February 2005 with a date of rank of 6
January 2005.

5.  The applicant provided a 15 January 2005 memorandum from the Office of
the Deputy Chief of Staff G-1.  This memorandum stated, in pertinent part,
all Reserve Component officers in the rank of WO1 would be promoted by the
Office of Promotions, Reserve Components, USAHRC or the National Guard
Bureau, as appropriate, to CW2 when the meet the 24 month time in grade
requirements for promotion and complete the Warrant Officer Basic Course.

6.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from
       the Office of Promotions, Reserve Components, USAHRC.  That office
recommended denial of the applicant's request.  It noted he had a date of
rank    of 6 January 2005 and a promotion eligibility date of 6 January
2005.  On            1 February 2005, that office assumed the
responsibility of issuing unit promotion memorandums to CW2 when they meet
the time in grade requirements for promotion and completion of the Warrant
Officer Basic Course.  That office issued his promotion memorandum on 22
February 2005.  In accordance with Army Regulation 135-155, paragraph 4-21,
a promotion letter cannot be backdated.

7.  A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for
comment or rebuttal.  He stated he was selected for promotion to CW2 by the
2004 First Lieutenant/CW2 Mandatory Promotion Board.  He was notified by
USAHRC on 27 July 2004 that he would be promoted to CW2.  He met all the
qualifications and had 2 years time in grade on 6 January 2005.  He had
been assigned to a CW2 position in a TPU on 23 September 2004.  Army
Regulation 135-155 states USAHRC had the responsibility to notify the
gaining command he was under consideration for promotion at the time of his
transfer.  (He provided a copy of figure 4-1 from the regulation to support
this contention.)  He told his gaining unit he was selected for promotion.
Prior to 1 February 2005, promotion to CW2 was a unit responsibility, and
the failure [to promote him in a timely manner] rests with
the Unit Administrator and the Rear Detachment Commander.  He was on active
duty during the period 6 January through 22 February 2005.  The difference
in active duty base pay [between WO1 and CW2] for those 48 days is $722.80.


8.  Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant
Officers other than General Officers), paragraph 2-1 states an officer in
the grade of Second Lieutenant or a USAR warrant officer in the grade of
WO1 will be considered for promotion without review by a selection board.
The officer's records will be screened to determine eligibility for
promotion to the next higher grade far enough in advance to permit
promotion on the date promotion service is completed.  Table 2-3 states the
maximum years as a WO1 required for promotion to CW2 by a mandatory board
is 2 years.  Two years is also the minimum years as a WO1 required for
promotion to CW2 by a unit vacancy board.

9.  Army Regulation 135-155, paragraph 4-15b states the effective date of
promotion for a warrant officer is the later of the date of the promotion
memorandum or the day following the date the officer completes the time in
grade requirements.

10.  Army Regulation 135-155, paragraph 4-3 states an officer whose name
has been submitted to a mandatory selection board and who changes
residence…or changes status from unit to nonunit…will be monitored by the
promotion authority submitting his or her name until the board
consideration is concluded.  The losing command will notify the gaining
command…in the format outlined in figure 4-1.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant met the eligibility criteria for promotion to CW2 on 6
January 2005.  At the time, units were responsible for promotion to CW2.
His unit did not take the required action, and USAHRC took over the
responsibility on 1 February 2005.  USAHRC did not issue his promotion
memorandum until 22 February 2005.

2.  Figure 4-1 of Army Regulation 135-155 does not apply to the applicant
as he, as a WO1, was not considered for promotion by a mandatory selection
board.

3.  The regulation states the effective date of promotion for a warrant
officer is the later of the date of the promotion memorandum or the day
following the date the officer completes the time in grade requirements.
Presumably there were other warrant officers who were caught up in the
transition between units/USAHRC being responsible for CW2 promotions.  The
applicant provides no evidence to show he was treated differently from
those warrant officers.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__hdt___  __jpi___  __cd____  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.




                                  ___Howard D. Thomas___
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050003385                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051103                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |131.04                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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