IN THE CASE OF:	 

		BOARD DATE:	  9 August 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110015721 


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 adjustment of his date of rank (DOR) for chief warrant officer two (CW2) from 6 January 2011 to 2 August 2010 with appropriate back pay.

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  he completed all necessary requirements for his promotion on 31 July 2010 and all of the paperwork was submitted to his battalion on 1 August 2010.

	b.  he was informed the battalion S-1 submitted his promotion packet to the brigade on 6 August 2010.  From 1 August 2010 to 17 October 2010 he checked regularly with the brigade regarding the status of his promotion.  In October 2010, he was finally informed his Periodic Health Assessment (PHA) expired and it needed updating prior to promotion.  He believes his PHA was current when his promotion packet was submitted.

	c.  in October 2010, he deployed in support of Operation New Dawn.  A week later he spoke with the brigade S-1 who informed him his promotion order from the brigade had just been signed by the brigade commander and he could expect to be promoted in November 2010.

	d.  during November 2010 his unit spent most of the time in transit from Camp Shelby, MS to Kuwait and on to Iraq.  As he inquired through the month of 


November 2010 regarding his promotion, he was informed that the brigade was out of contact with the State office due to lack of computer access during transit.

	e.  in December 2010, he inquired further and he was informed that his promotion packet had now been submitted for Federal recognition.

	f.  the order that was finally published for promotion was dated 6 January 2011.  This delay for promotion will continue to delay his future promotions as he continues his career.  It has also cost him a significant amount of money that he would have received had his promotion packet been afforded the appropriate attention from the onset.

 3.  The applicant provides:

* his sworn statement
* promotion orders
* emails
* Federal Recognition Examining Board (FREB) Proceedings
* DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Having prior enlisted service in the Army National Guard, the applicant was appointed as a warrant officer one on 2 August 2008.

2.  He completed the Warrant Officer Basic Course (WOBC) on 30 July 2010.

3.  He was ordered to active duty on 22 October 2010 in support of Operation New Dawn.  He served in Iraq from 16 November 2010 to 4 September 2011.  He was released from active duty on 9 November 2011.

4.  On 6 January 2011, an FREB determined he was qualified for Federal recognition in the rank of CW2.

5.  Orders 007-044, issued by the State of Idaho, Military Division, dated
7 January 2011, promoted the applicant to CW2, effective 6 January 2011.

6.  Special Orders Number 6 AR, issued by the National Guard Bureau (NGB), dated 10 January 2011, extended the applicant Federal recognition for promotion to CW2, effective 6 January 2011.


7.  In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Personnel Policy Division, NGB.  The advisory official states although it appears that delays occurred in the applicant's promotion process, given the fact he completed WOBC on 30 July 2010 and was eligible for promotion to CW2 on 2 August 2010, this would have given the State only 3 days to complete his promotion request.  It would seem unlikely this would be ample time to process his promotion by the requested date.

8.  The opinion points out National Guard Regulation 600-101 (Warrant Officer - Federal Recognition and Related Personnel Actions), chapter 7-2, states in part, "Promotions will be based on Department of the Army proponent military occupational specialty 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."

9.  The advisory official recommends the applicant's effective date be adjusted to 17 September 2010, the day the Idaho Army National Guard held their September 2010 Federal Recognition Board.  The advisory official states the State does not concur with this recommendation.

10.  A copy of the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for information and to allow him the opportunity to submit comments or a rebuttal.  The applicant did not respond.

11.  National Guard Regulation 600-101 states in:

	a.  Table 7-1 (Minimum Time in Grade for Promotion), the minimum time in grade as a WO1 for promotion to CW2 is 2 years.

	b.  Table 7-2 (Minimum Military Educational Requirements for Promotion and Time in Current Grade Required for Course Enrollment), the requirement to complete 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.  The applicant requests adjustment of his DOR for CW2 to 2 August 2010.

2.  Evidence of record shows the applicant was appointed as a WO1 in the Army National Guard on 2 August 2008.  He completed WOBC on 30 July 2010.  He also met the time-in-grade requirement (24 months) on 2 August 2010.

3.  The advisory opinion points out delays occurred in his promotion process and recommended his DOR be adjusted to 17 September 2010, the day the Idaho Army National Guard held their September 2010 Federal Recognition Board.  However, through no fault of the applicant, he was not promoted to CW2 in a timely manner.  The state clearly failed to hold the Federal Recognition Board in a timely manner so he could have been promoted to CW2 and granted Federal recognition effective 2 August 2010.  

4.  Notwithstanding the NGB advisory opinion, it would be equitable to correct the applicant's records to show his effective date and DOR for promotion to CW2 as 2 August 2010.  It would also be equitable to show he was granted Federal recognition for promotion to CW2, effective 2 August 2010.

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 6 AR, dated 10 January 2011, to show he was granted Federal recognition effective
2 August 2010 for the purpose of promotion to CW2.

2.  The Board also 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)                                         AR20110015721



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110015721



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1