RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        4 March 2008
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070013271


      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:

|     |Mr. James E. Anderholm            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. William D. Powers             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Jerome L. Pionk               |     |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, reconsideration for promotion to
Chief Warrant Officer Four (CW4).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he believes he was not selected
for promotion to CW4 because several key documents were missing from his
Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and the record reviewed by the
Reserve Component Selection Board (RCSB) in March 2007.

3.  The applicant provides a list of the documents missing from his OMPF
and all the documents in question with the exception of Officer Evaluation
Reports (OERs) covering the periods March 2004 through March 2005 and March
2005 through March 2006.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's record shows that he has served on active duty in the
Regular Army, in an enlisted status, from 19 September 1987 through 21 July
1994, at which time he was honorably separated to accept a warrant officer
appointment.

3.  On 22 July 1994, he was appointed a warrant officer in the United
States Army Reserve (USAR).  He was promoted to Chief Warrant Officer Two
(CW2) on 22 July 1996, and to Chief Warrant Officer Three (CW3) on 22 July
2002.

4.  The applicant is currently serving with the 807th Medical Brigade,
Ames, Iowa, as a Veterinary Service Technician.

5.  A United States Army Human Resources Command, St. Louis, Missouri (HRC-
St. Louis) Memorandum, dated 31 July 2007, notified the applicant that he
had been considered but not selected for promotion to CW4 by recently
convened RCSB.

6.  In connection with the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was
obtained from the Chief, Special Actions Branch, Department of the Army
(DA) Promotion, HRC-St. Louis.  This official indicated that when the
applicant's file was reviewed by the 2007 DA CW4 RCSB, it did not include
the applicant's military education and OERs from 16 May 1996 through 15
December 2001.  This official further states that based on these omissions,
the applicant is eligible for promotion consideration by a DA Promotion
Advisory Board (PAB), and it is recommended the applicant be granted PAB
consideration under the 2007 criteria, and if selected that he be promoted
with the appropriate date of rank.
7.  On 17 January 2008, the applicant concurred with the HRC-St. Louis
advisory opinion.

8.  Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant
Officers Other Than General Officers) prescribes policy and procedures used
for selecting and promoting commissioned officers (other than commissioned
warrant officers) of the Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS)
and of commissioned and warrant officers (WO) of the U.S. Army Reserve
(USAR).

9.  Chapter 3, Section III of the Reserve promotion regulation contains
guidance on promotion reconsideration boards.  It states that officers and
warrant officers who have either failed selection for promotion, or who
were erroneously not considered for promotion through administrative error
may be reconsidered for promotion by either a PAB or Special Selection
Board (SSB), as appropriate.  PABs are non-statutory boards, and are
convened to reconsider all warrant officers, to include commissioned
warrant officers.  It states, in pertinent part, that these boards are
convened to correct/prevent an injustice to an officer or former officer
who was eligible for promotion but whose records contained a material error
when reviewed by the mandatory selection board.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that he should be reconsidered for promotion
to CW4 based on a material error in his record reviewed by the 2007 CW4
RCSB was carefully considered and found to have merit.

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant's military education
was not properly documented and that there were several key documents
missing from the record reviewed by the 2007 CW4 RCSB.  Therefore, it would
be appropriate and serve in the interest of justice and equity to have the
applicant's record placed before a PAB for promotion reconsideration to CW4
under the criteria of the 2007 CW4 RCSB.  Further, if he is selected, his
promotion effective date and date of rank should be assigned as if he had
been originally selected under the earlier criteria identified by the PAB,
and he should be provided all back pay and allowances due as a result.

BOARD VOTE:

___JEA _  __WDP__  __JLP __  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 all
Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

      a.  submitting his corrected record to a duly constituted Promotion
Advisory Board for promotion consideration to Chief Warrant Officer Four
under the criteria followed by the 2007 DA Chief Warrant Officer Four RCSB;


      b.  If he is selected for promotion by the Promotion Advisory Board,
his record should be corrected by establishing his Chief Warrant Officer
Four promotion effective date and date of rank as if he had been originally
selected under the earlier criteria identified by the Promotion Advisory
Board and by providing him all back pay and allowances due as a result;

      c.  If he is not selected for promotion by the Promotion Advisory
Board, he should be so notified by the appropriate Human Resources Command
promotion officials.




                                  _____James E. Anderholm___
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070013271                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2008/02/DD                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |131.1000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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