RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 14 February 2008
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070003901
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.
x
x
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, in effect, adjustment to his date of rank and effective date of promotion to chief warrant officer two (CW2).
2. The applicant states, in effect, that his promotion from pay grade W-1 to pay grade W-2 should have taken place on 23 June 2002. The promotion took place on 16 November 2002. He states he had turned in all applicable paperwork two months prior to the expected promotion date and due to administrative delays at the battalion level, he was not promoted on time.
3. In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of Orders 358-01, Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, Centennial, Colorado, dated 24 December 2002 and a copy of Orders 103-005, Departments of the Army and Air Force, State of Colorado, Englewood, Colorado, dated 30 May 2000.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The evidence shows the applicant was appointed in the Colorado Army National Guard (COARNG) and signed his Oaths of Office (NGB Form 337) as a warrant officer one (WO1) on 23 June 2000. On this same date, he was extended temporary Federal recognition as a WO1 in the COARNG.
2. The evidence shows the applicant was ordered to active duty for training on 23 June 2000 for the purpose of attending the Initial Entry Rotary Wing Aviator Course and Warrant Officer Basic Course. He successfully completed these courses of instruction and on 14 June 2001 he was released back to his Army National Guard unit from active duty for training in the rank and pay grade, WO1, W-1. The applicant's DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, shows on his release from active duty for training, he held the military occupational specialty (MOS) 153BO, UH-1 Pilot.
3. On 16 September 2002, the Department of the Army, COARNG, prepared and distributed a memorandum, Subject: Award of Military Occupational Specialty (MOS), Special Qualifications Identifier (SQI) and Additional Skill Identifier (ASI), awarding the applicant the MOS 153BO, UH-1 Pilot.
4. On 24 December 2002, the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs issued Orders 358-001, promoting the applicant to CW2, pay grade W-2, with an effective date of 16 November 2002. The additional instructions on the order indicate he was assigned the duties of a UH-60 Pilot, MOS 153DO in paragraph 302, line 04, of the authorization document, on 16 November 2002.
5. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was requested of the Departments of the Army and Air Force, National Guard Bureau, Personnel Division.
6. In an advisory opinion provided by the above referenced office, the Chief, Personnel Division, recommended disapproval of the applicant's request for an adjustment of the effective date of his promotion. The Chief, Personnel Division, based his recommendation in accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, on the fact that over three years had passed since the alleged error and the The Adjutant General of Colorado had given approval for the applicant's promotion to be effective on 16 November 2002. The advisory continued that, in accordance with National Guard Regulation 600-100, Chapter 8, the promotion authority for all Army National Guard officers was that of the The Adjutant General and if he chose not to promote an officer, he or she was not obligated to do so.
7. The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for acknowledgement and/or rebuttal on 10 September 2007. The applicant did not respond to the advisory opinion.
8. National Guard Regulation 600-101, prescribes the policies and procedures for ARNG WO personnel management. This regulation specifies that appointment and promotion of warrant officers in the ARNG is a function of the State The Adjutant General. A warrant officer in the grade of WO1 must complete a minimum of two years time in grade for promotion to CW2 and all warrant officers must be fully qualified under the term of this regulation. Promotions will be accomplished only when an appropriate position vacancy exists in the unit. Warrant officers assigned to positions for which they are not duty MOS qualified are not eligible for promotion until determined to be so qualified by certification from the DA MOS proponent. All warrant officers must complete proponent certification requirements for the new duty MOS within two years from the date of assignment.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The evidence shows the applicant was appointed to the rank and pay grade WO1, W-1, on 23 June 2000. Based on the requirement for completion of two years time in grade for promotion to CW2, his promotion eligibility date was 23 June 2002.
2. The evidence shows the applicant was awarded the MOS 153BO; however, there is no evidence he was assigned to a valid position vacancy within the unit.
3. The available evidence shows the applicant was not assigned to a valid position vacancy (Paragraph 302, Line 04 with duty MOS 153DO (UH-60 Pilot)) until 16 November 2002. Based on this assignment, he became fully eligible for promotion and was promoted to the rank and pay grade, CW2, W-2, with a date of rank and effective date of 16 November 2002.
4. In view of the evidence in this case, the applicant is not entitled to an adjustment to his promotion effective date and date of rank
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
_x_____ __x___ __x____ 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.
______x____
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
CASE ID
AR20070003901
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.
131.0400
2.
131.0500
3.
4.
5.
6.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009567
d. The applicant concludes by stating, in effect, that within 6 months of May 2004 he completed the Qualification Course for the UH-1 and then completed the C-26 Qualification Course less than a year later. The evidence of record further shows that upon review of the applicant's NGB Form 62-E, the commander of the applicant's proposed unit recommended approval of the applicant's appointment to fill a UH-60 Pilot position. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011124C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, that his records be corrected to show he received Federal Recognition as a first lieutenant effective 31 January 1997. A National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 62-E (Application for Federal Recognition), dated 10 December 1996, was completed requesting Federal Recognition of the applicant as a first lieutenant in the Aviation Branch. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a....
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100010463
BOARD DATE: 8 March 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100010463 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his records to show he was appointed in the grade of chief warrant officer two (CW2). b. Paragraph 3-28 states certain personnel qualifying for WO MOS's currently authorized in the appropriate regulation may apply for appointment under this section.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008630
On 25 August 2005, the applicant was appointed a WO1 in the UTARNG as an Aviation Safety Officer. The evidence of record confirms that prior to the applicants appointment in the UTARNG as an Aviation Safety Officer, he completed more than 2 years of active duty service in the USAF in the rank of CPT from the date of his promotion in that rank on 12 September 1984 through his REFRAD on 31 August 1987. As a result, the Board recommends that all State Army National Guard Records and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110021677
Special Orders Number 170 AR, dated 27 July 2011, shows the applicant was granted permanent Federal recognition for his initial appointment as a WO1 with an effective date of 23 November 2010. c. National Guard Bureau Policy Memorandum #07-226, subject: Policy to Appoint Sergeant First Class (SFC) to Chief Warrant Officer Two (CW2), dated 14 August 2007, states: (1) Effective on the date of this memorandum, States are authorized to appoint SFC (E-7) to the grade of CW2 if they meet the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005458
In the case of an applicant being found qualified for Federal recognition as a CW2, in accordance with paragraph 2-10c(2) of this regulation, except for the successful completion of WOCS and Department of the Army certification, the following statement will be entered on the record of proceedings (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 WO1 as provided by NGR...
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 | CY2012 | 20120009571
The orders stated the effective date of promotion in the Reserve of the Army and corresponding DOR would be the date the Chief, National Guard Bureau (NGB), extend and Federal Recognition of his state promotion. The advisory official stated: a. the applicant was eligible for promotion to CW2 on 4 February 2011, he was approved for promotion by a State Federal Recognition Board, and his orders for CW2 were published effective 5 April 2011. The OHARNG requested that the applicant be granted...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001604
Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). National Guard Regulation 600-101, table 7-2 (Minimum Military Educational Requirements for Promotion and Time in Current Grade Required for Course Enrollment) requires the completion of the warrant officer basic course or equivalent certification within 2 years from date of initial appointment as WO1 for promotion to CW2. As a result, the Board recommends that the State Army National Guard records and the Department of the Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110021250
The applicant requests adjustment of his Federal recognition order for promotion to chief warrant officer two (CW2) in the Florida Army National Guard (FLARNG) from 15 February 2012 to an earlier date. The applicant states: * His promotion packet was submitted in May 2011 after discovery of state procedures which were not being disseminated following his initial date of eligibility, 13 January 2011 * His promotion documents were forwarded to his battalion S-1 upon being informed of...