IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  12 July 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110018827 


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 her date of rank (DOR) for promotion to the rank of chief warrant officer three (CW3) be adjusted from 12 August 2011 to 1 April 2011. 

2.  She states her promotion was delayed due to unnecessary administrative delays in processing her request for Federal Recognition that was caused by a change in requirements in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2011.

3.  She provides a copy of her North Carolina Army National Guard (NCARNG) promotion orders, a copy of her Federal Recognition orders, and a copy of her promotion memorandum. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was appointed as a warrant officer one (WO1) in the NCARNG on 1 April 2005.  She was promoted to the rank of chief warrant officer two (CW2) on 31 May 2007.

2.  On 30 March 2011, orders were published by the NCARNG promoting her to the rank of CW3 effective 16 March 2011; however, on 4 May 2011 those orders were amended to change the effective date and DOR to 1 April 2011.
 
3.  On 16 August 2011, Special Orders Number 189 AR, published by the National Guard Bureau (NGB) granted her Federal Recognition in the rank of CW3 effective 12 August 2011.  

4.  In the processing of this case a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the NGB which recommended that the applicant’s request be denied because the delay in promotion was caused by a change in requirements of the law that delayed processing of Federal recognition for all warrant officer promotions.  The advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment and to date, no response has been received.

5.  National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-101 (Warrant Officers - Federal Recognition and Related Personnel Actions) prescribes policies and procedures for ARNG warrant officer personnel management.  Chapter 7 states that promotion of warrant officers in the ARNG is a function of the State.  As in original appointments, a warrant officer promoted by State authority has a State status in the higher grade under which to function.  However, to be extended Federal recognition in the higher grade, the officer must satisfy the requirements for this promotion.  Promotions will be based on the Department of the Army proponent duty 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 an Federal Recognition Board (FRB).

6.  NGB Policy Memorandum 11-015, Subject: Federal Recognition of Warrant Officers 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.  The Chief, NGB, reviews and approves those actions.  Title 10, U.S. Code, sections 571b and 12241b introduce a requirement that all WO appointments and promotions to chief warrant officer grades in the ARNG be made by the President of the United States.  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 (delegated to the Secretary of Defense).  Requests for appointment will be staffed through the Department of the Army, Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1.  This requirement may add 90 days or more to the process for approval for appointments or promotions to be completed.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows the applicant's date of rank as a CW3 was determined by the NCARNG to be 1 April 2011.  The NGB issued her Federal recognition orders for promotion to CW3 effective 12 August 2011 despite her having met promotion qualification on 1 April 2011. 
2.  However, as a result of the 2011 NDAA, the promotion of a CW2 to CW3 is now issued by the President of the United States and is delegated to the Secretary of Defense.  

   a.  The delay in the applicant's promotion resulted from a statutory change in the procedures for the promotion of WOs that was mandated by the 2011 NDAA that WOs be placed on a scroll and staffed to the President (delegated to the Secretary of Defense) for approval.  The law took effect on 7 January 2011.  There followed a period of time during which the procedures for processing WO appointment and promotion scrolls were developed and refined.

	b.  Although this process was modeled on the existing process of scrolling more senior commissioned officer appointments and promotions, there was still a period during which the WO scrolling process was being perfected.  This development process did result in the delay of the promotions of all ARNG WOs, and probably WOs from other components, recommended for promotion during the months immediately following the enactment of the scrolling requirements.  

	c.  The delay in question was not the result of an error or an injustice as much as it was the inherent consequence of elevating the appointment and promotion authority for WOs to such a high level.  While it is true the processing time has been materially reduced as the service learned how to streamline the new process, the fact remains that the delay is an organic feature of the new scheme mandated by Congress and not an error or an injustice specific to the applicant.

3.  In view of the foregoing evidence and the change in law, the applicant's effective date of promotion and date of rank seem appropriate and reasonable and should not be changed.

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)                                         AR20110018827





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110018827



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1