RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        25 March 2008
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070012651


      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. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Shirley L. Powell             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Yolanda Maldonado             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Edward E. Montgomery          |     |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 the effective date of his
promotion to Chief Warrant Officer Five (CW5) be changed to 27 July 2005.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he was selected for assignment as the
Commander of Detachment 49, OSACOM [Operational Support Airlift Command],
Texas Army National Guard (TXARNG), a CW5 position, on 15 May 2005.  He
states that he subsequently met all the requirements for promotion to CW5
on 24 June 2005, the date of his graduation from the Warrant Officer Senior
Staff Course, and he has been performing duties as a Detachment Commander,
in a CW5 position, continuously since 15 May 2005.  The applicant claims
that the reason for the unjust delay in his promotion to CW5 was the
unintentional and subtle administrative mistake regarding whether he was
technically assigned to the detachment commander position.  He states that
he was properly selected for and assigned to the detachment commander
position and that operationally (real-world) the position was vacated by
the previous commander, and he was performing those duties from 15 May
2005.

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of his
application:  Self-Authored Statement; Assumption of Command Memorandum,
dated 20 May 2005; Assignment Orders, dated 5 July 2005; Unit Manning
Report (UMR), dated 28 September 2005; State Promotion Orders, dated 28
July 2005 and
19 December 2006; Promotion/Federal Recognition Orders, dated 13 March 2006
and 8 January 2007; Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs), ending 3 April 2006
and 11 May 2007; Academic Evaluation Reports (AERs), dated 28 May 2005, 24
June 2005 and 25 April 2006;  Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) Scorecards,
dated between 27 May 1999 and 20 September 2006; Electronic Mail Messages
(e-mail), dated between September 2005 and February 2006; and AGR
Continuation Revocation Orders, dated 16 November 2004.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's record shows that as of the date of his application to
the Board, he was still serving as a CW5 in the TXARNG.

2.  On 5 July 2005, Texas Military Forces Land Component Command Orders 186-
1027 released the applicant from his assignment as the platoon leader in
Detachment 2, Company H, 171st Aviation Battalion, and transferred him to
Detachment 49, Operational Support Airlift Command as the Detachment
Commander, effective 15 May 2005.

3.  An Assumption of Command Memorandum, dated 20 May 2005, confirms the
applicant assumed command of Detachment 49, OSACOM, TXARNG, on
15 May 2005.  A Unit Manning Report on file confirms the detachment
commander position assumed by the applicant was an authorized CW5 position.


4.  An Academic Evaluation Report (AER) on file confirms the applicant
successfully completed the C-12 Fixed Wing Qualification Course on 28 May
2005.  A second AER confirms he successfully completed the Warrant Officer
Senior Staff Course (WOSSC) on 24 June 2005.

5.  On 28 July 2005, Texas Military Forces Land Component Command Orders
209-1017, authorized the applicant's promotion to CW5, effective 27 July
2005.

6.  On 2 February 2006, a National Guard Bureau (NGB) Military Personnel
Management Technician, determined the applicant was not occupying a valid
CW5 position on the date the Federal Recognition Board convened, and
indicated his recommendation for promotion was not approved.  She further
required evidence confirming the applicant was qualified as a C-12 Pilot.

7.  The applicant's Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) contains an
Officer Evaluation Report (OER) covering the period 15 May 2005 through 3
April 2006, which evaluated the applicant as the Detachment Commander of
Detachment 49, Operational Airlift Command, TXARNG.

8.  On 19 December 2006, Texas Military Forces Land Component Command
Orders 353-1067 again authorized the applicant's promotion to CW5,
effective
14 December 2006, with a date of rank of 29 April 1996; and NGB Special
Orders Number 4 AR, dated 8 January 2007, Federally Recognized the
applicant in the grade of CW5, effective 14 December 2006.

9.  In connection with the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was
obtained from the NGB, Chief, Personnel Division.  This official recommends
the effective date of the applicant's promotion to CW5 and his date of rank
be adjusted to 28 September 2005, and that he receive all back pay and
allowances due as a result.  This official states that this recommendation
is based on the UMR that confirms the applicant's assignment to a CW5
position.

10.  On 18 January 2008, the applicant responded to the NGB advisory
opinion.  He stated, in effect, that while he appreciates the NGB’s
recommendation, he believes this recommended date is based on an assumed
assignment date to the CW5 position that is based on the date of the UMR.
However, this date is simply
the date the UMR is printed and is unrelated to the specific date of his
assignment to the position.  He claims his actual assignment date to the
position is 15 May 2005, as is confirmed by official orders assigning him
to the position and his OER covering the period 15 May 2005 through 3 April
2006, which evaluated him as the detachment commander, the CW5 position in
question. The applicant goes on to identify the specific reasons he was
fully qualified for promotion on the original date of his promotion by the
State and Federal Recognition, which was 27 July 2005.

11.  National Guard Regulation 600-101 prescribes the policies and
procedures for the management of officers of the ARNG.  Chapter 7 contains
promotion policy and states, in pertinent part, that in order to be
eligible for promotion to CW5, a member must be in an active status and be
MOS qualified.  He/she must also be medically fit and meet the height
weight requirements, have completed the minimum years of promotion service,
have completed the military education requirement (completion of Warrant
Officer Senior Staff Course), and have passed the Army Physical Fitness
Test (APFT) within the time frame prescribed.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant assumed a valid CW5
detachment commander position on 15 May 2005, as evidenced by assignment
orders and an assumption of command memorandum.  It also shows he completed
the military education requirement for promotion on 24 June 2005, as
evidenced by AERs on file that confirm his successful completion of the C-
12 Pilot course on 28 May 2005 and the WOSSC on 24 June 2005.

2.  The applicant's record also shows he met all other requirements for
promotion on 27 July 2005, the date of his original Federal Recognition
Board and State promotion.   Although, the NGB advisory opinion recommends
correction of the applicant's record to show the effective date of his
promotion was 28 September 2005, which is the date of the UMR confirming
his assignment to the CW5 position, there is sufficient evidence to confirm
the applicant was assigned to the position and assumed his duties as a
detachment commander on 15 May 2005, as evidenced by his OER covering the
period 15 May 2005 through 2 April 2006, orders assignment him to the
position, and an assumption of command memorandum on file.

3.  In view of the facts of this case, and given the concurrence of the
State and the NGB, there is a sufficient evidentiary basis to support
correcting the effective date of the applicant's promotion to CW5.
Further, based on the evidence
confirming he was fully qualified and had assumed and was performing in the
higher graded position on 27 July 2005, the date of his original State
promotion and Federal Recognition Board, it would be appropriate and serve
the interest of justice to correct the applicant's Army National Guard
records and the Department of the Army records to show he was promoted to
and Federally Recognized in the grade of CW5, effective 27 July 2005, and
to provide him all back pay and allowances due as a result.

BOARD VOTE:

___SLP _  __YM ___  __EEM__  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant
a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that the
state Army National Guard records and the Department of the Army records of
the individual concerned be corrected, as appropriate, by showing he was
promoted to and granted Federal Recognition in the grade of Chief Warrant
Officer Five, effective 27 July 2005; and by providing him all back pay and
allowances due as a result of this correction.




                                  _____Shirley L. Powell ____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070012651                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2008/03/                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |102.0700                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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