IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	  25 March 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090012673 


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 that her date of rank (DOR) for chief warrant officer two (CW2) be adjusted to 18 November 2007.

2.  The applicant states she was eligible for promotion to CW2 on 18 November 2007.  She contends she met the promotion eligibility requirements in accordance with National Guard Regulation 600-101 (Warrant Officer - Federal Recognition and Related Personnel Actions), Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), and Army Regulation 600-9 (The Army Weight Control Program), but was erroneously withheld from being promoted because she did not have a current flight physical as a result of her pregnancy.

3.  The applicant provides electronic mail, dated 21 August 2007, 17 June 2008, and 6 August 2008; a recommendation for promotion of warrant officer memorandum, dated 14 September 2007; a Personnel Qualification Record; a DA Form 705 (Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard); a DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report); a periodic health assessment; excerpts from National Guard Regulation 600-101 and Army Regulation 40-501; a memorandum, dated 12 August 2008; and a copy of National Guard Bureau (NGB) Special Orders Number 209 AR, dated 12 August 2008, in support of her application.



CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Having prior enlisted service in the Army National Guard, the applicant was appointed as a warrant officer one (WO1) in the Army National Guard effective 18 November 2005.

2.  The applicant completed the Aviation Warrant Officer Basic Course on 8 February 2007.

3.  The applicant provided a periodic health assessment, dated 18 August 2007, stating "yes" she can perform in an austere environment within 6 months and "yes" she meets retention standards.

4.  On 14 September 2007, a recommendation for promotion of warrant officer was submitted on behalf of the applicant to the Iowa Army National Guard.  According to the advisory opinion from NGB, the Iowa Army National Guard rejected the recommendation for promotion due to a missing flight physical.

5.  NGB Special Orders Number 209 AR, dated 12 August 2008, show the applicant was granted Federal recognition for promotion to CW2 effective 26 June 2008.

6.  In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion was obtained from NGB.  That office recommends approval of the applicant's request to adjust her CW2 DOR to 18 November 2007 and that she receive all back pay and allowances.  The opinion points out that the applicant's WO1 DOR was 18 November 2005; that she completed the Aviation Warrant Officer Basic Course on 8 February 2008; that she passed the Army Physical Fitness Test and met the height and weight requirement on 21 November 2006; and that she had a current physical health assessment, dated 18 August 2007, stating "yes" she can perform in an austere environment within 6 months and "yes" she meets retention standards.  As of 18 November 2007 the applicant met eligibility criteria for promotion from WO1 to CW2 in accordance with National Guard Regulation 600-101.

7.  The advisory opinion states that on 14 September 2007 a memorandum for recommendation for promotion of warrant officer was submitted for the applicant and the Iowa Army National Guard rejected the recommendation for promotion due to a missing "flight physical."  In accordance with National Guard Regulation 600-101, the flight physical was not a requirement for promotion of warrant officers from WO1 to CW2; therefore, the absence of the flight physical was irrelevant.  Due to the rejection of the recommendation packet, the applicant had to wait a few months before she completed a flight physical due to her pregnancy.  The applicant was eventually promoted to CW2 with a DOR of 26 June 2008.  The opinion concluded that the applicant was eligible for promotion to CW2 on 18 November 2007 and that office did not find any relevant reason why the applicant's recommendation for promotion was rejected by the Iowa Army National Guard.  On 3 December 2009, the Iowa Army National Guard concurred with the NGB advisory opinion.

8.  The advisory opinion recommendation was based on paragraph 7-7 of National Guard Regulation 600-101 which prescribes the eligibility for promotion of Army National Guard warrant officers and paragraph 8-23 of Army Regulation 40-501 which states, "Officers, warrant officers, and enlisted personnel, regardless of component, are considered medically qualified for promotion on the basis of the annual period health assessment outlined in paragraph 8-20."

9.  On 14 December 2009, a copy of the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for comment and possible rebuttal.  The applicant did not respond within the given time frame.

10.  Table 7-1 (Minimum Time in Grade for Promotion) of National Guard Regulation 600-101 states that the minimum time in grade as a WO1 for promotion to CW2 is 2 years.

11.  Table 7-2 (Minimum Military Educational Requirements for Promotion and Time in Current Grade Required for Course Enrollment) of National Guard Regulation 600-101 requires the completion of the warrant officer basic course or equivalent certification within 2 years from date of initial appointment as WO1 for promotion to CW2.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Evidence of record shows the applicant was appointed as a WO1 in the Army National Guard on 18 November 2005.  She completed the Aviation Warrant Officer Basic Course.  She also met the time-in-grade requirement (24 months) on 18 November 2007.

2.  Based on the foregoing and in accordance with the governing regulation, it would be equitable to correct her military records to show her effective date of promotion to CW2 as 18 November 2007 with a DOR of 18 November 2007.  It would also be equitable to show she was granted Federal recognition for promotion to CW2 effective 18 November 2007.



BOARD VOTE:

____X___  ___X____  ___X____  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  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 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 by amending Special Orders Number 209 AR, dated 12 August 2008, to show that she was granted Federal recognition effective 18 November 2007 in the grade of CW2.

2.  The Board further recommends that the applicant be paid all back-pay and allowances due as a result of this correction.



      ____________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)                                         AR20090012673



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090012673



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1