BOARD DATE:	  20 July 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100008900 


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 correction of his military records to show his date of rank to chief warrant officer three (CW3) as 15 May 2006.

2.  He states he was promoted to chief warrant officer two (CW2) on 31 May 1990.  He completed the Senior Warrant Officer Training Course (SWOT) in June 1993, was recommended for and selected for promotion to CW3 in 1995.  Prior to receiving this promotion, he was appointed as a commissioned officer in the Minnesota Army National Guard (MN ARNG) and served as such for 11 years.  

3.  When he reverted back to warrant officer, he was led to believe his date of rank for CW2 would be adjusted and he would be promoted to CW3 at 5 years time in grade.  He subsequently had to petition the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) for an adjustment of his date of rank.  On 17 April 2007, the ABCMR recommended that his date of rank be adjusted to 16 May 2001.  

4.  Prior to 1999, National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-101 (Personnel-General, Warrant Officers - Federal Recognition and Related Personnel Actions) stated in paragraph 7-9d that any warrant officer who completed the SWOT or Warrant Officer Advanced Course (WOAC) applicable to their current duty military occupational specialty (MOS) had met the military education promotion requirement.  In 1999, this regulation was changed to add that enrollment and participation in any such course must have begun prior to 1 October 1996; otherwise, the pre-requisite studies for WOAC must be completed before promotion to CW3.
5.  He pursued his promotion to CW3 within the National Guard Bureau (NGB), arguing that he met the education requirement.  However, he was not successful and submitted a request for constructive credit on 4 May 2006.  He states that the Aviation Proponent Office at Fort Rucker, Alabama, initially denied his request because it did not contain any supporting documentation.   On 
5 November 2006, he resubmitted his packet with the supporting documents.  He was notified in April 2007 that this packet was lost.  He then sent another packet on 13 April 2007 directly to the Aviation Proponent Office.  On 30 April 2007, the Aviation Proponent Office recommended approval.  The applicant argues that this approval recommendation simply validated that he had met the academic requirements when the Army selected him for promotion to CW3 in 1995.  Therefore, he had always met the educational requirements.  Accordingly, he should have been promoted to CW3 upon serving 5 years in grade as a CW2.

6.  He contends that NGB erred in requiring him to request a waiver of the education requirement.  NGR 600-101 is very clear but he could not get anyone to review the regulations to see that the SWOT was replaced by WOAC.  He believes that NGB overlooked the fact that he was previously a warrant officer and had simply applied the regulation based on his previous commissioned officer status.

7.  The applicant provides, in support of his application, copies of:

	a.  email communications between himself and the MN ARNG;

	b.  ABCMR Record of Proceedings, Docket Number AR20060008684;

	c.  Request for Constructive Credit for Warrant Officer Education, dated 
12 September 2006;

	d.  Table 2-3 (Warrant officer time in grade and military education requirements), Army Regulation 135-155;

	e.  Memorandum, Request for Waiver of Military Education, Fort Rucker, Alabama, dated 30 April 2007;

	f.  Memorandum, Promotion as a Reserve Commissioned Warrant Officer of the Army, NGB, dated 19 June 2008;

	g.  Advisory Opinion, NGB, dated 22 December 2006; and

	h.  email communications between the Aviation Proponent Office and the MN ARNG.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  At the time of his application, the applicant was serving in the MN ARNG as a CW3.

2.  On 12 September 2006, the Chief, Personnel Policy Branch, NGB, stated in his memorandum to the Army Aviation Center that the applicant had completed the SWOT in MOS 150 series on 22 June 1993.

3.  Table 2-3, Army Regulation 135-155, indicates that the WOAC was formerly titled the SWOT.  This course of study did not become a mandatory requirement for promotion until 1 January 1994.

4.  On 12 April 2007, the ABCMR, in Docket Number AR20060008684, recommended that the applicant's date of rank for CW2 be adjusted to 16 May 2001.

5.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Personnel Division, NGB, Arlington, Virginia.  The opinion stated that the promotion of warrant officers in the ARNG is a function of the State.  Promotions will be based on Department of the Army proponent duty MOS certification via satisfactory completion or constructive credit of appropriate level of military education; time in grade; demonstrated technical and tactical competence; and potential for service in the next higher grade, as determined by a Federal Recognition Board.

6.  The opinion further stated that the applicant was previously granted credit for his earlier service as a CW2 and had his date of rank adjusted to 16 May 2001.  As a result of this date of rank adjustment, he met the minimum time in grade in the lower grade for promotion to CW3 on 16 May 2006, but needed the appropriate level of military education.  The applicant met the education requirement when his request for equivalent training was approved on 6 May 2008.  Accordingly, the opinion recommended denial of the applicant's request to adjust his date of rank.

7.  A copy of the advisory opinion was sent to the applicant on 10 May 2010 for his information and opportunity to rebut.  No response has been received.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his date of rank to chief warrant officer three should be adjusted to 15 May 2006.

2.  The available evidence clearly shows that the applicant completed the SWOT in 1993.  This course was replaced by the WOAC and became a requirement for promotion to CW3 on 1 January 1994.  

3.  The governing regulation clearly states that successful completion of the SWOT prior to 1996 met the educational requirement for promotion to CW3.  Therefore, the applicant did not require a waiver of or equivalency credit for his education level.

4.  Notwithstanding the advisory opinion, the applicant's request should be granted.  His date of rank for promotion to CW3 should be adjusted to 16 May 2006, the date he met the time in grade requirement as a CW2.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

____x____  ___x_____  ___x _  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 partial 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 adjusting his date of rank and effective date of promotion to CW3 to 16 May 2006.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to adjusting his date of rank to CW3 to 15 May 2006.  



      _______ _   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)                                         AR20100008900





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)