Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110008012
Original file (20110008012.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  26 January 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110008012 


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 appointment to the rank of chief warrant officer two (CW2) be changed to 14 August 2007.  

2.  The applicant states that she served in pay grade E-7 before she completed the Warrant Officer Basic Course (WOBC) and she should have been appointed as a CW2 on 14 August 2007; however, her Federal recognition was not approved until 18 September 2007.  Accordingly, she desires to have her DOR adjusted to 14 August 2007.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of:

* orders promoting her to the pay grade of E-7 on 1 January 2004
* orders appointing her to the rank of warrant officer one (WO1), effective 20 March 2007
* her DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) for completion of WOBC on 3 July 2007
* National Guard Bureau (NGB) Memorandum #07-026 

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 Oregon Army National Guard (ORARNG) on 19 July 1991.  She completed one-station unit training as a unit supply specialist at Fort Jackson, South Carolina and remained in the ORARNG through continuous reenlistments.  She was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 
1 January 2004.

3.  On 19 March 2007, she was honorably discharged from the ORARNG.  On 
20 March 2007, she was appointed as a WO1.

4.  On 3 July 2007, she completed WOBC at Fort Lee, Virginia.

5.  On 14 August 2007, NGB Memorandum #07-026 was published which indicates that individuals could be appointed to the rank of CW2 if they had completed 2 years time in grade as an E-7 and had completed warrant officer candidate school or had been certified by the Department of the Army Military Occupational Specialty proponent.

6.  In the processing of this case a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the NGB, Chief, Policy and Personnel Division which recommends approval of the applicant’s request to change her DOR to 14 August 2007 because it was the intent of the ORARNG to make her effective date of appointment to CW2 as 14 August 2007.   The advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment and to date no response has been received by the staff of the Board.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention has been considered and appears to have merit.  The applicant was serving in the pay grade of E-7 at the time she was appointed and she had served 3 years in that grade before she was appointed to the rank of WO1 on 20 March 2007.

2.  However, subsequent to her appointment a memorandum was released from the NGB which authorized appointment to the rank of CW2 for individuals having 2 years time in grade as an E-7, which the applicant met.  Accordingly, individuals who were the applicant’s peers and who were appointed as warrant officers immediately outranked the applicant because of the policy change. 
3.  Therefore, since the applicant met the requirements for appointment as a CW2 after the policy changed, her records should be corrected to show that she was promoted to the rank of CW2, effective 14 August 2007, with entitlement to all back pay and allowances.

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 a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

* showing she was promoted to and granted Federal recognition in the rank of CW2, effective and with a date of rank of 14 August 2007, with entitlement to all back pay and allowances
* granting her promotion consideration by all boards that she should have based on the above change 




      _______ _ 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)                                         AR20110008012



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110008012



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018149

    Original file (20140018149.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests her date of rank (DOR) for promotion to chief warrant officer two (CW2) in the Georgia Army National Guard (GAARNG) be amended to the date she completed the Warrant Officer (WO) Basic Course (WOBC). National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-101 (WO Federal Recognition and Related Personnel Actions), paragraph 2-10c (in effect at the time) essentially states a Soldier in the rank of MSG may be promoted to CW2 in one of two ways, after first having served in the rank for 2...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007860

    Original file (20130007860.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    His effective date for promotion to E-7 was 9 August 2006; his effective date of appointment to warrant officer candidate was 28 July 2010; his effective date of appointment to warrant officer one (WO1) was 10 November 2010; his completion of WOBC and State promotion to CW2 was 18 April 2012; and his Federal recognition effective date of rank was 28 December 2012. c. All prerequisites to meet the promotion eligibility guidelines for CW2 were achieved. The applicant provides: * NGB Policy...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090015776

    Original file (20090015776.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The advisory opinion states that the applicant was promoted to SFC on 19 November 2002, was appointed to and completed the WOBC on 18 December 2008, and met the eligibility criteria of NGB Memorandum Number 07-026. Their office recommends the Texas Army National Guard publish a corrected copy of orders promoting the applicant to CW2 with an effective date of 18 December 2008. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of record shows the applicant was promoted to SFC on 19 November 2002 and he...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | AR20140005417

    Original file (AR20140005417.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant provides: * NGB Form 62E (Application for Federal Recognition as an Army National Guard (ARNG) Officer or Warrant Officer and Appointment as a Reserve Commissioned Officer or Warrant Officer of the Army in the ARNG of the United States), dated 1 November 2010 * NGB Form 89, dated 20 January 2011 * NGB PPOM 11-045, dated 26 July 2011, subject: Guidance Concerning Applications for Federal Recognition of Warrant Officers * DA Form 71 (Oath of Office – Military Personnel), dated 24...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012973

    Original file (20130012973.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    This memorandum states all initial appointments of warrant officers and appointments in a higher grade (promotion) by warrant or commission will be issued by the President effective 7 January 2011. c. Before NDAA 2011, all National Guard warrant officer promotions effective DOR was the date of the State promotion orders as stated in the Federal Recognition Board recommendations. Based on NGB Policy Memorandum Number 07-026, he would have been eligible for promotion to CW2 upon completion...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120007625

    Original file (20120007625.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    NGB Policy Memorandum 11-015, subject: Federal Recognition of WOs in the ARNG, dated 14 June 2011, states that ARNG WOs are initially appointed and are also promoted by the State or Territory to which the officer is assigned. As a result, effective 7 January 2011, all initial appointments of WOs and promotion to higher grades, by warrant or commission, will be issued by the President. This development process resulted in the delay of the promotions of all ARNG WOs (and probably WOs from...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013009

    Original file (20090013009.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant provides a copy of his DA Form 1059, numerous orders, NGB 89 (Proceedings of a Federal Recognition Examining Board), and NGB-ARH Policy Memorandum 07-026. The evidence of record shows that the applicant completed WOBC on 11 September 2008 and was entitled to promotion to CW2 upon completion of the course. 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 showing he was promoted...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010304

    Original file (20120010304.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests correction of his date of rank (DOR) to chief warrant officer two (CW2) to show an effective date of 30 March 2011. The applicant states he completed the warrant officer basic course (WOBC) on 30 March 2011 and was eligible for advancement to CW2 on that date since he had more than 2 years of time in grade as a sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7 prior to his Federal recognition date. Ohio ARNG memorandum, dated 29 May 2012, subject: Correction of ARNG Promotion Effective...

  • 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005809

    Original file (20090005809.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant provides a recommendation for promotion and promotion orders in support of his application. Evidence of record shows the applicant was appointed a WO1 on 22 September 2007. 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 amending NGB Special Orders Number 306 AR, dated 8 December 2008, to show that he was promoted to CW2 with a date of rank and...