Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011823
Original file (20090011823.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    15 December 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090011823 


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, correction of his records to show he received a direct appointment as a warrant officer in the rank/grade of warrant officer one (WO1)/W-1 or chief warrant officer two (CW2)/W-2 under the provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, the documents he provides offer proof that he is eligible for appointment as a warrant officer and his promotion is long overdue.

3.  The applicant provides copies of personal documents and identification cards; civilian education transcripts; military training certificates; award orders and certificates; letters of commendation, appreciation, and recommendation; his separation and discharge documents; and medical statements in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, 
has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) from 5 October 1979 to
30 September 1983.  He then served in the Army National Guard (ARNG) from
1 October 1983 to 3 October 1985, U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) from 16 May 1986 to 8 July 1993, ARNG from 1 July 1994 to 30 June 1995, USAR from 1 July 1995 to 12 August 2000, USAR (on active duty) from 13 August 2000 to
30 August 2002, and ARNG from 31 August 2004 to 16 February 2006.  The highest rank/grade the applicant held was staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6.

3.  Headquarters, Massachusetts National Guard, Office of The Adjutant General, Milford, MA, memorandum, subject:  Notification of Eligibility for Retired Pay at Age 60 (Twenty Year Letter), dated 22 September 2005, shows the applicant was notified that he had completed the required years of service and he was eligible for retired pay upon application at age 60 in accordance with the provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, section 12731.

4.  The applicant's National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) shows the applicant enlisted on 31 August 2004, he was honorably separated on 16 February 2006 under the provisions of National Guard Regulation 600-200, paragraph 8-26j(1), with a narrative reason of "medically unfit for retention," and he was transferred to the USAR Retired Reserve.  At the time he had completed 1 year, 4 months, and 16 days of net service this period; 15 years, 3 months, and 8 days of prior Reserve Component service; 5 years, 2 months, and 26 days of prior active Federal service; 21 years, 10 months, and 20 days of total service for pay; and 20 years, 1 month, and
26 days of total service for retired pay.  At the time of his separation the applicant held the rank/grade of SSG/E-6.

5.  There is no evidence in the applicant's military personnel records that he submitted an application for appointment as a warrant officer.  There is also no evidence that the applicant was offered an appointment as a warrant officer or that he was administered an oath of office accepting an appointment as a warrant officer in the U.S. Army.

6.  In support of his application, the applicant provides the following documents:

   a.  personal documents and identification cards pertaining to the applicant's birth and ethnicity that show the applicant is 50 years of age and a member of the Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribe on the Tribal Roll;

   b.   copies of transcripts from five civilian educational institutions that show, in pertinent part, the applicant has been credited with completing 55 credit hours as of 25 June 2009 and he is majoring in Fire Protection and Safety;

	c.  copies of documents pertaining to the applicant's military training throughout the period of his military service that show, in pertinent part, the applicant completed the Light Wheel Vehicle Mechanic course for military occupational specialty (MOS) 63B, Heavy Wheel Vehicle Mechanic course for MOS 63S, Active Guard/Reserve Entry Training, the Defense Basic Preservation and Packing course, Department of Transportation Hazardous Material Training, and the Environmental Regulatory Compliance Refresher course;

   d.  award orders and certificates that show the applicant was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, and the Cold War Certificate of Recognition; 

   e.  a letter of commendation based on the applicant's significant contributions to the Cobra Motor Maintenance Program in 1982;

	f.  a letter of appreciation based on the applicant's dedicated service as a member of the Wheeled Vehicle Maintenance Team, Cobra Troop, 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment, from July 1982 through April 1983;

   g.  three letters of recommendation (dated 8 February 1989, 24 February 1995, and10 March 1995) offered in support of the applicant's appointment as a warrant officer in the ARNG and that also endorse the applicant for admission to the Warrant Officer Training program; 

   h.  separation orders and discharge documents that substantiate the applicant's military service; and

   i.   two medical statements that show the applicant had a normal physical examination completed in 2008 and that show he was found able to return to work with no restrictions.

7.  Army Regulation 135-100 (Appointment of Commissioned and Warrant Officers of the Army) provides procedures for the appointment of commissioned and warrant officers in the Reserve components of the Army.  Chapter 2 (Processing), paragraph 2-1 (Applications and allied papers), shows that the
DA Form 61 (Application for Appointment) will be submitted, along with enclosures and a recommendation by the applicant's commander, through the chain of command to the appropriate Army component headquarters.
8.  Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 69 (Retired Grade), section 1372 (Grade on retirement for physical disability), in pertinent part, provides that unless entitled to a higher retired grade under some other provision of law, any member of an armed force who is retired for physical disability is entitled to the grade or rank in which he/she is serving on the date when he/she is retired.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends his records should be corrected to show he was appointed as a USAR warrant officer in the rank of WO1 or CW2 because he is eligible for appointment as a warrant officer and his promotion is long overdue.

2.  Records show the applicant was honorably discharged from the ARNG on
16 February 2006 in the rank/grade of SSG/E-6, he was transferred to the USAR Retired Reserve in the rank/grade of SSG/E-6, and the highest rank/grade he held during his tenure of military service was SSG/E-6.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to promotion to any higher grade.

3.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant had a normal physical examination completed in 2008 and he was found able to return to work with no restrictions.  It is noted that the applicant was a member of the retired reserve at the time and there is no evidence this determination was based on the medical fitness standards outlined in Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3 (Medical Fitness Standards for Retention and Separation, Including Retirement).  Therefore, the applicant provides insufficient evidence to support his contention that he is eligible for appointment as a warrant officer in the U.S. Army.

4.  There is no evidence that the applicant submitted an application for appointment as a warrant officer, that he was offered an appointment as a warrant officer, or that he was administered an oath of office accepting an appointment as a warrant officer in the U.S. Army in the rank of WO1 or CW2.  Therefore, in view of all of the foregoing, the applicant is not entitled to correction of his records to show he was appointed as a warrant officer in the U.S. Army or U.S. Armed Forces.

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.



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
      
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)                                         AR20090011823



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090011823



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130005257

    Original file (20130005257.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests: * correction of his date of rank (DOR) to chief warrant officer two (CW2) from 19 February 2013 to 10 November 2012 and his time in grade (TIG) * compensation for the wages he lost as a result of his delayed promotion 2. However, given the fact that the State published the promotion order on 21 November 2012 and the fact that delays in his packet being processed both at the State level and at NGB were no fault of the applicant, and now based on Public Law 112-239, as...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100028027

    Original file (20100028027.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    e. He applied for appointment as a WO in MOS 973A again, was selected, and was appointed in October 1982. There is no evidence in the applicant's military personnel records that shows he was selected for appointment as a WO prior to 1982. The applicant contends his records should be corrected to show he was appointed as a USAR WO in the rank of WO1 in 1980 with corresponding adjustment of the effective dates of his promotions to CW2 and CW3 as a result of this correction because of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080007466

    Original file (20080007466.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 11 September 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080007466 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his date of rank (DOR) to Chief Warrant Officer Two (CW2) be adjusted from 9 February 2006 to 24 July 2001. The opinion stated that the applicant had 4 years, 2 months, and 26 days of service as a WO1 when he was appointed in the KYARNG on 20 October 2005.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120008776

    Original file (20120008776.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, due to an error, he did not receive FEDREC until 3 January 2012 (though the effective date was 4 August 2009). As the NGB advisory opinion notes, WO appointments were put on hold for many months following the change in the law as the NGB made adjustments to its appointment process. The delay in processing the applicant's initial appointment to WO1 would have had the effect of delaying his eligibility for promotion to and FEDREC as a CW2.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018199

    Original file (20080018199.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The evidence of record shows that the applicant was granted temporary Federal recognition effective 7 March 2007 upon his completion of WOCS and execution of an oath of office. Subsequently, the applicant's Federal recognition packet was considered by a second GAARNG Federal Recognition Board on 13 December 2007 and the applicant executed a second oath of office on that date. Based on the recommendations of the second GAARNG Federal Recognition Board, the NGB issued orders awarding the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082568C070215

    Original file (2002082568C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT STATES : That he never received his promotion to CW2 and was informed that it was due to his excess status and/or units failure to submit the appropriate documentation. He now requests that this Board consider his service, the recorded reason to deny his promotion, and grant his request. The evidence contained in the applicant's records show that proper documentation was submitted and complied with.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001053214C070420

    Original file (2001053214C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. There are no records for the applicant from 2 August 1996 to present. There is no evidence and the applicant has not provided any evidence to support his contention that he should have been promoted upon completion of WOCS and WOBC in the USAR.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130005753

    Original file (20130005753.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests his effective date of promotion and date of rank (DOR) to chief warrant officer two (CW2) in the Army National Guard (ARNG) be adjusted from 19 February 2013 to 12 January 2013. b. NGB, Federal Recognition section provided the processing history of the applicant's request as follows: * 21 November 2012, the Federal Recognition section reviewed the applicant's promotion packet * 26 November 2012, the applicant's promotion packet was accepted by Human Resource...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016499

    Original file (20080016499.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant provides, in support of his application, copies of both of his oaths of office to WO1, Proceedings of a Federal Recognition Examining Board, Federal Recognition orders, promotion orders, and seven additional pages from his military personnel record. There is no evidence of record that shows why a Federal Recognition Board was not convened until almost 2 years after the applicant was appointed. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130006623

    Original file (20130006623.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    c. Paragraph 9-15b(6) states in the case of an applicant being found qualified for Federal recognition as a CW2 in accordance with paragraph 2-10c(2), except for the successful completion of WOCS and Department of the Army MOS certification (i.e., completion of WOBC), the following statement will be entered on the 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, W1, as...