IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 19 MARCH 2009
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080018023
THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:
1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).
2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests, in effect, reconsideration of his previous request to have his date of rank (DOR) for promotion to Chief Warrant Officer Two (CW2) be adjusted from 1 August 2007 to 15 April 2007 and that he receive appropriate back pay and allowances.
2. The applicant states he is in a CW2 slot and that there are no Warrant Officer One (WO1) slots in the unit. He also reemphasizes that it was his commanders intent to have him promoted on 15 April 2007 when he met eligibility requirements.
3. The applicant provides statements from his unit commander and unit training officer, a copy of the unit manning documents, and resubmits documents that were seen by the original board.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20070018899 on 24 April 2008.
2. The statements provided by the applicants commander and training officer; and an advisory opinion obtained by the Board staff from the Acting Chief, Personnel Division, National Guard Bureau (NGB) constitute new evidence which warrants consideration.
3. The statement from the applicants unit commander notes that the applicant reported to the unit in December 2006 and immediately made his chain of command aware of his eligibility for promotion to CW2. He states that he [unit commander] was under the impression the applicant would be promoted in April 2007, which was his full intent, and that he did not question the promotion until the paperwork never came. The commander indicates that upon investigation it was discovered that the administrative office had initially misplaced the applicants required paperwork and that it was subsequently returned as incomplete, and that the applicant then had to resubmit the entire packet. As a result the applicant was promoted 4 months late. The commander states he takes full responsibility for mishandling the applicants promotion packet. The commander confirmed the applicant was in an appropriate CW2 slot during the period in question.
4. The statement from the unit training officer confirms the unit has no WO1 positions on the unit manning document and that the applicant has been in an authorized CW2 slot since his arrival at the unit.
5. The advisory opinion from the NGB recommended the applicants request be approved. The opinion stated the applicant met the time in grade requirements of National Guard Regulation 600-101 (Warrant Officers - Federal Recognition and Related Personnel Actions), Table 7-1, which required a minimum time in grade of two years for promotion to CW2. The opinion noted the applicant met all requirements for promotion on 15 April 2007 and that he had submitted a promotion packet shortly after arriving at his unit. The official noted the applicants commander confirmed that it was his intent that the applicant be promoted on time and stated the applicant should not be penalized for the delayed promotion which was due to no fault of his own. On 21 January 2009, the applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion for information and given an opportunity to comment. The applicant did not respond.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The Board noted in its original deliberation that there was no evidence the applicants commander intended to promote the applicant on 15 April 2007 when he met basic eligibility requirements, or that the applicant met all the requirements for promotion on that date.
2. The information provided by the applicant now confirms that he did in fact meet promotion eligibility requirements, that his commander intended to have him promoted on that date, and that had it not been for administrative issues, the applicant would have been promoted on 15 April 2007 when he first became eligible.
3. Based on the applicant's meeting the time in grade requirements and completion of other promotion criteria for promotion to CW2, he should have been promoted to CW2 with an effective date and date of rank of 15 April 2007
(2 years from the date of his initial appointment).
4. Therefore, the applicant's records should be corrected to show he was promoted to CW2 with an effective date and date of rank of 15 April 2007, granted Federal Recognition on that date, and paid back pay and allowances as appropriate.
BOARD VOTE:
___X_____ ____X____ ____X____ 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 amendment of the ABCMRs decision in Docket Number AR20070018899, dated 24 April 2008. As a result, the Board recommends that all state Army National Guard records and the Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected, as appropriate, by:
a. amending his records to show he was promoted to CW2 and extended Federal Recognition in the grade of CW2, effective 15 April 2007; and
b. paying the applicant any pay and allowances due as a result of these corrections.
__________XXX_____________
CHAIRPERSON
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080018023
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080018023
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120019774
Due to unit transfers, paperwork mishandling, and processing times, his promotion did not occur until 23 July 2012 with a DOR of 13 July 2012. b. His packet was approved by the State promotion board on 16 March 2012 and he was granted Federal recognition for CW2 on 23 July 2012 with a DOR of 13 July 2012. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was appointed as a WO1 in the MOARNG on 7 December 2007 and that he met the minimum time-in-grade and education requirements and was fully...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130010220
The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request to correct his military records by changing the date of his promotion for chief warrant officer two (CW2) from 6 April 2012 to 17 July 2011. An email communication, as provided by the applicant, dated 19 February 2013, from the NGB states, in effect, that the applicant's promotion packet for CW2 was originally submitted in May 2011, but it was rejected because his initial appointment had not been federally recognized. The NDAA...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090007402
The evidence of record shows that the applicant was appointed as a WO1 on 22 July 2004. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was granted Federal Recognition as a WO1 effective 22 July 2004 upon her initial appointment in the ARNG and execution of the oath of office. As a result, the Board recommends that all State Army National Guard and Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. amending TNARNG Orders 136-842 to show the applicant was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120011689
At that time the board was not completed. National Defense Authorization Action (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2001, Subject: Changes to WO Federal Recognition Process, dated 22 July 2011, states effective 7 January 2011 all initial appointments of WOs and promotion to higher grades, by warrant or commission, will be issued by the President (delegated to the Secretary of Defense). Notwithstanding the fact his initial appointment as a WO1 in 2009 was not federally recognized until 2011, changes to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090015444
The applicant requests correction of his date of rank (DOR) and effective date of promotion as a chief warrant officer two (CW2) from 22 January 2008 to 14 June 2007. The official stated that he met the eligibility criteria for promotion to CW2 on 14 June 2007: He is in an active status and is MOS qualified; he met the 2-year minimum time in grade in the lower grade for promotion to CW2; and he had a valid physical health assessment (PHA), dated 18 March 2007. As a result, the Board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021810
The errors were: * the failure of completing the initial federal recognition which was not the fault of the applicant * it was the responsibility of the NCARNG to process the applicant's federal recognition * the applicant submitted his CW2 promotion packet 60 days prior to his two years time in grade as WO1 based on a DOR 11 July 2007 stated on the NCARNG appointment orders * on 16 November 2009 the NCARNG found the applicant's federal recognition for initial appointment was never completed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080019246
The applicant requests adjustment of his promotion effective date and date of rank (DOR) to chief warrant officer three (CW3) from 5 December 2007 to 16 March 2007. He met the time in grade requirements of Table 7-1 of National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-101 (Warrant Officer - Federal Recognition and Related Personnel Actions) and NGB Personnel Policy and Readiness Policy Letter 07-25, dated 29 August 2007, which state that the minimum time in grade requirements for promotion to CW3 is five...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080004802
The applicant requests, in effect, that his Chief Warrant Officer Two (CW2) promotion and Federal Recognition effective date be corrected to reflect 17 December 2007 vice 12 March 2008. The applicant provides the following documents in support of his application: Joint Force Headquarters (JFH), Tennessee Army National Guard (TNARNG) Memorandum, dated 6 March 2008; Promotion Checklist; Unit Memorandum, dated 5 December 2007; Personnel Qualification Record; JFH, TNARNG Orders 338-844, dated 4...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016495
The Proceedings of a Federal Recognition Examining Board, dated 19 September 2007, shows the board found the applicant to be physically, morally, generally, and professionally qualified for the appointment and again recommended he be granted Federal Recognition. Records show that the applicant was granted temporary Federal Recognition effective 29 November 2006 upon his initial appointment in the GAARNG as WO1. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021419
The applicant states: a. The applicant provides: * chronological outline * Officer Record Brief * Personnel Qualification Record Officers/WOs * DA Form 705 (Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard) * Individual Medical Readiness * 2008 LAARNG appointment orders * 2009 ARARNG WO1 appointment orders * interstate transfer orders * 2009 and 2011 FREB Proceedings * DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) * Recommendation for Promotion to CW2 * 2011 NGB 62E (Application for...