RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  12 July 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070008076 


	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.


Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano

Director

Mr. Mohammed R. Elhaj

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. James E. Anderholm

Chairperson

Mr. Jose A. Martinez

Member

Mr. William F. Crain

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, in effect, that his National Guard Federal Recognition order (initial appointment), 19 January 2005, in the grade of warrant officer one be corrected to show the effective date 26 April 2002.  The applicant further requests his date of rank to chief warrant officer two be corrected to be effective 26 April 2004. 

2.  The applicant states that due to an administrative error, permanent Federal Recognition Orders were not published prior to the expiration of temporary Federal Recognition as a warrant officer one in the Nevada Army National Guard (NVARNG).  

3.  The applicant provided a copy of his initial appointment packet, chief warrant officer two promotion packet, and orders promoting him to chief warrant officer two in support of this application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 14 February 2002, a Federal Recognition Board was held by the NVARNG to determine if the applicant was qualified to be awarded Federal Recognition.  The proceedings indicated that the applicant was satisfactory in his physical qualifications, moral character, and general qualifications.  

2.  On 9 April 2002, the State of Nevada Military Department, Office of the Adjutant General, issued order number 99-26 for appointment of the applicant as a warrant officer one effective 26 April 2002.  

3.  The applicant accepted an appointment as a warrant officer one in the NVARNG on 26 April 2002.  

4.  On 26 April 2002, the applicant executed an Oath of Office as a warrant officer one in the NVARNG and was granted temporary Federal Recognition.

5.  There is no evidence that the applicant received permanent Federal Recognition as a warrant officer one from the National Guard Bureau within the six month period required by National Guard/Army regulations.  As a result his temporary Federal Recognition expired.

6.  On 14 May 2003, the applicant completed the Aviation Warrant Officer Basic Course.
7.  On 24 February 2004, a second Federal Recognition Board was held by the NVARNG to determine if the applicant was qualified to be awarded Federal Recognition.  The proceedings indicated that the applicant was satisfactory in his physical qualifications, moral character, and general qualifications.  

8.  On 25 February 2004, the applicant executed a second Oath of Office as a warrant officer one in the NVARNG and was granted temporary Federal Recognition.

9.  For the second time, the applicant did not receive permanent Federal Recognition as a warrant officer one from the National Guard Bureau within the six month period required by National Guard/Army regulations.  As a result his temporary Federal Recognition expired.

10.  On 19 January 2005, a third Federal Recognition Board was held by the NVARNG to determine if the applicant was qualified to be awarded Federal Recognition.  The proceedings indicated that the applicant was satisfactory in his physical qualifications, moral character, and general qualifications

11.  On 25 February 2005, the applicant executed a third Oath of Office as a warrant officer one in the NVARNG and was granted temporary Federal Recognition.

11.  National Guard Bureau Federal Recognition Orders Number 33 AR, dated 7 February 2005, awarded the applicant permanent Federal Recognition for initial appointment to the grade of warrant officer one, effective 19 January 2005.

12.  On 9 February 2005, the Adjutant General, State of Nevada Army National Guard requested an exception to policy to promote the applicant to warrant officer two effective 26 April 2006.

13.  On 17 February 2005, the Army National Guard Bureau approved the exception to policy to promote the applicant to chief warrant officer two.  Records show that the National Guard Bureau credited the applicant with time already served as a warrant officer one during the period 26 April 2002 through 18 January 2005 

14.  On 18 April 2005, a Federal Recognition Board was held by the NVARNG to determine if the applicant was qualified to be awarded Federal Recognition as a chief warrant officer two.  The proceedings indicated that the applicant was satisfactory in his physical qualifications, moral character, and general qualifications
15.  National Guard Bureau Federal Recognition Orders Number 173 AR, dated 6 June 2005, awarded the applicant permanent Federal Recognition for promotion to the grade of warrant officer two, effective18 April 2005. 

16.  National Guard Regulation 600-100 (Commissioned Officer-Federal Recognition and Related Personnel Actions) provides procedures for processing all applications for Federal Recognition.  Paragraph 2-1 states that commissioned officers of the ARNG are appointed by the several States under Article 1, Section 8 of the U. S. Constitution.  These appointments may be federally recognized by the Chief, NGB under such regulations as the Secretary of the Army may prescribe and under the provisions of this regulation.  Officers who are federally recognized in a particular grade and branch shall be tendered an appointment in the same grade as Reserve commissioned officers of the Army with assignment to the Army National Guard of the United States if they have not already accepted such appointment.

17.  National Guard Regulation 600-100, paragraph 2-2 states that the effective date of Federal Recognition for original appointment is that date on which the commissioned officer executes the oath of office in the State.  Paragraph 2-3a states that temporary Federal Recognition upon initial appointment establishes the authorized grade to be used by all officers in their federally recognized status. 

18.  National Guard Regulation 600-100, paragraph 2-13 states that temporary Federal Recognition may be extended to an officer who has been appointed in the ARNG of a State and found to be qualified by a Federal Recognition Board pending final determination of eligibility and appointment as a Reserve commissioned officer of the Army.  If not sooner withdrawn or replaced by the granting of permanent Federal Recognition, temporary Federal Recognition will automatically terminate six months after the effective date of State appointment.  However, should the initial period of temporary Federal Recognition expire due to administrative processing delays, through no fault of the member, a subsequent Federal Recognition Board should be convened to consider the request again and grant another new period of temporary Federal Recognition if warranted.

19.  National Guard Regulation 600-100, paragraph 10-15b states that temporary Federal Recognition may be granted by an Federal Recognition Board to those eligible when the board finds that the member has successfully passed the examination prescribed herein, has subscribed to the oath of office, and has been appointed by a State order for assignment to a position vacancy in a federally recognized unit of the ARNG.  The Federal Recognition Board will forward the NGB Form 89 and allied documents to The Adjutant General.  When the member is favorably recommended, The Adjutant General will endorse the packet to the NGB.  If the member meets the qualifications and requirements for Federal Recognition, the Chief, NGB extends permanent Federal Recognition to the member in the grade and branch in which the member is qualified.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Records show that the applicant was granted temporary Federal Recognition effective 26 April 2002 upon his initial appointment in the NVARNG as a warrant officer one.  At that time, his Federal Recognition packet and allied documents should have been forwarded to the Adjutant General of the State of Nevada for endorsement to the National Guard Bureau for extension of permanent Federal Recognition.  Through no fault of the applicant, this action was not taken.

2.  Subsequently, the applicant's Federal Recognition packet was considered by two additional NVARNG Federal Recognition Boards.  

3.  Based on the recommendations of the third NVARNG Federal Recognition Board, the National Guard Bureau issued orders awarding the applicant permanent Federal Recognition effective 19 January 2005.

4.  From the foregoing, it is clear that an administrative error denied the applicant Federal Recognition effective 26 April 2002.  

5.  Based on applicable law and regulation, the applicant is entitled to have Federal Recognition Order Number 33 AR amended to show the effective date of permanent Federal Recognition in the grade of warrant officer one is 26 April 2002.

6.  The applicant also contends that he is entitled to correction of his date of rank to chief warrant officer two.  Records show that the applicant was granted an exception to policy for the two year time-in-grade requirement for promotion to chief warrant officer two based on the fact that his initial Federal Recognition was not timely processed.  As a result of this exception, the applicant was promoted to chief warrant officer two on 18 April 2005.  There is no evidence in the available records and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence showing that he met the qualifications for promotion to chief warrant officer two or that The Adjutant General of the State of Nevada intended to promote him prior to 18 April 2005.




BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

_JAM__  _JEA____  __WFC___  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by amending Federal Recognition Order Number 33 AR dated 7 February 2005 to show that he was extended Federal Recognition effective 26 April 2002 in the grade of warrant officer one.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to amendment of his date of rank to chief warrant officer two to show the effective date as 26 April 2004.




_James E. Anderholm____
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
YYYYMMDD
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.