RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:                 21 MARCH 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:         AR20050005330


      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             |
|     |Mr. Jessie B. Strickland          |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John Slone                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Yolanda Maldonado             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Robert Morig                  |     |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 he be reinstated as a warrant officer and
promoted to the rank of chief warrant officer three (CW3).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was assigned to a military
occupational specialty (MOS) 210A [Utilities Operation and Maintenance
Technician] slot but was not allowed to reclassify until after he had
already been nonselected for promotion twice.  He goes on to state that he
was passed over twice because he was not qualified in his MOS and was
discharged as a warrant officer.  However, the day after his discharge he
was deemed eligible for reclassification.  He continues by stating that he
was told he had to serve 1 year as a 210A before he could reclassify;
however, that caused him to be discharged.  He also states that the officer
evaluation report (OER) that he received rated him best qualified and above
center of mass.  He further states that he was caught in a “Catch 22” and
that he believes that he has more to contribute as a warrant officer than
as an
E-5, which is the rank he is currently serving in, in the same unit, and in
the job he was doing as a warrant officer.

3.  The applicant provides a chronology of events in his case, a copy of
his discharge orders, his request for reclassification, reassignment
orders, his request for assignment, documents related to his experience in
the 210A field, his officer record brief (ORB), his college transcripts,
his last OER, and promotion documents.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  He initially enlisted in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) on 29
January 1981 and served as a combat engineer until he was commissioned as a
second lieutenant in the Utah Army National Guard (UTARNG) on 21 March
1986.  He completed his flight training and was returned to his unit as a
rotary wing aviator.

2.  He was promoted to the rank of first lieutenant on 20 March 1989 and to
the rank of captain on 18 April 1991.

3.  On 6 June 1997, a memorandum was dispatched to the applicant informing
him that he had been nonselected for promotion to the rank of major for the
first time.  He was also advised that he had not completed the necessary
education requirements for promotion prior to the convene date of the
board.


4.  On 10 March 1998, the applicant accepted an appointment as an aviation
chief warrant officer two (CW2) in the UTARNG.  Meanwhile, the applicant
was selected for promotion to the rank of major; however, because he was
serving as warrant officer, he could not accept the promotion.

5.  On 29 December 1998, he was discharged from the UTARNG and was
transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement).

6.  On 7 January 2003, the applicant submitted a request for
reclassification to MOS 210A and assignment to a USAR Troop Program Unit
(TPU) in Utah.  His gaining unit agreed to accept him with an outdated
flight physical.

7.  On 26 August 2003, the first notification was dispatched to the
applicant informing him that he had been nonselected for promotion to the
rank of CW3.  It should be noted that there were no evaluations in his
Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) evaluating him as an aviation
warrant officer.

8.  On 23 September 2003, authorization was granted to assign the applicant
to a TPU as an engineer warrant officer with instructions that he should
serve 1 year in the position to further demonstrate his aptitude and
ability before requesting reclassification.

9.  On 26 May 2004, a determination was made by the engineer proponent that
the applicant’s request for reclassification did not contain sufficient
information to determine his military credibility and level of military
experience in relation to MOS 210A.  Thus he was deemed ineligible to
reclassify into that MOS.

10.  On 24 August 2004, a memorandum was dispatched to the applicant
informing him that he had been nonselected for promotion to the rank of CW3
for a second time.

11.  The applicant received his first OER as an engineer technician on
27 September 2004, was deemed “Best Qualified”, and was placed above center
of mass.  On the same day, he submitted his second request for
reclassification and a request for promotion reconsideration, which was
promptly returned to him due to his mandatory separation as a result of his
being twice nonselected for promotion.

12.  Although not fully explained in the available records, the engineer
proponent issued a determination for reclassification on 29 October 2004
indicating that after reviewing the additional information provided by the
applicant, it was determined that he was eligible to reclassify to MOS
210A.  However, he must complete the warrant officer basic course for
certification in the MOS.

13.  On 3 November 2004, the applicant was honorably discharged from the
USAR in the rank of CW2.  On 4 November 2004, he enlisted in the USAR in
the pay grade of E-5 for 1 year and assignment to the same unit he was
discharged from.  He reenlisted on 3 November 2005 for a period of 3 years
and on 16 January 2006, he was ordered to active duty in support of
Operation Iraqi Freedom for a period of 545 days.

14.  Army Regulation 135-155 provides policy and procedures for the
selection and promotion of commissioned and warrant officers of the Army
National Guard and USAR.  It provides, in pertinent part, that USAR
officers will be considered for promotion in their basic branch only.
Officers who are detailed will be identified for promotion in their basic
branch.  An officer whose removal from active Reserve status is required by
law for failure to be selected for promotion must be removed within the
prescribed time limits.  Those time limits can be extended or suspended
only as authorized by law.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  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.

2.  Although the applicant’s qualifications to serve as an engineer warrant
officer are not in question since the proponent determined that he was
eligible to reclassify to that branch, the proponent also determined that
he would be required to complete the warrant officer basic course (WOBC) to
be certified in the MOS.

3.  It appears that in the applicant’s case, he was being considered for
promotion to the rank of CW3 in his aviation branch specialty and shortly
after he accepted a warrant officer appointment, he transferred to the USAR
Control Group (Reinforcement).  During the 4 years he remained in the
control group the clock was ticking in regards to his promotion
eligibility.  However, his record was void of any indication of his
performance and potential to serve in the next higher warrant officer
grade.


4.  By the time the applicant decided to return to a TPU and to reclassify
to another specialty, he was in his first year of promotion consideration
and was still being considered as an aviator.  He was again nonselected for
promotion before he had completed 1 year working as an engineer warrant
officer, before he received an evaluation as a warrant officer, and before
he was deemed eligible to reclassify.

5.  While it is unfortunate that he was not selected for promotion to the
rank of CW3, there appears to be no evidence in the available records to
show that he was improperly considered for promotion or that his
nonselection was improper.

6.  The applicant had a responsibility to ensure that his records were up
to date and properly reflected his potential for promotion to the next
higher warrant officer rank in his basic branch.  He had no warrant officer
training in any specialties (resident and/or nonresident) and it was not
until he had already been twice nonselected that he received an evaluation
of his performance and potential as a warrant officer.

7.  Although he subsequently demonstrated by his performance that he could
serve as an engineer warrant officer, he had not yet been reclassified as
an engineer warrant officer and had not completed the WOBC.  Accordingly,
he was properly considered for promotion in his basic branch of aviation at
the time.

8.  The end result of the applicant’s situation was that he waited too long
to begin the process of changing branches/specialties and at the same time
made little or no effort to remain competitive with his aviation warrant
officer peers during the time he was becoming eligible for promotion.  As a
result, he was not selected for promotion and by law, was required to be
separated.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____JS__  __YM ___  ___RM__  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.




                                  _____John Slone__________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050005330                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060321                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A USAR-TPU Soldier                    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A USAR-TPU Soldier                    |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |N/A USAR-TPU Soldier                    |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |N/A USAR-TPU Soldier                    |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |AR 15-185                               |
|ISSUES                  |192/REINSTATE                           |
|1.110.0300              |                                        |
|2.131.0000              |310/PROM                                |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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