BOARD DATE:	  18 September 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110018957 


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 date of rank (DOR) for promotion to chief warrant officer four (CW4) to show 19 December 2010 instead of 11 August 2011.

2.  The applicant states he is petitioning the Army Board for Correction of Military Records to correct his DOR for promotion to CW4 to 19 December 2010, the date he became eligible for promotion.  The applicant further states he was eligible for promotion every 5 years as an Army National Guard Soldier.  The applicant states the National Guard Bureau (NGB) changed the warrant officer promotion process and mandated that warrant officers had to go through the same process as commissioned officers.  A Federal Recognition Board (FRB) considered his promotion packet in January 2011 and the promotion packet was sent to NGB where it was put on a scroll.  The applicant states he waited 130 days before his promotion packet found its way to the final approval level and he was given a DOR of 11 August 2011.

3.  The applicant provides:

* NGB Special Orders Number 47 AR, dated 4 March 1999
* NGB Special Orders Number 22 AR, dated 25 January 2001
* NGB Special Orders Number 342 AR, dated 6 December 2005
* NGB Special Orders Number 188 AR, dated 16 August 2011


CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant had prior active duty service.  He was appointed as a warrant 
officer one in the California Army National Guard (ARNG) on 16 December 1998. 
On 19 December 2005, he was promoted to chief warrant officer three.

2.  On 15 May 2010, an FRB determined the applicant was qualified for Federal recognition in the rank of CW4.  The applicant indicates that his promotion packet was forwarded to the NGB in January 2011.

3.  The applicant's California ARNG promotion orders are not available in his military service records.

4.  NGB Special Orders Number 188 AR, dated 16 August 2011, extended the applicant permanent Federal recognition for promotion to the rank of CW4 effective 11 August 2011.

5.  An advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Personnel Policy Division, NGB, in the processing of this case.  The Personnel Policy Division Chief recommended disapproval of the applicant's request to correct his CW4 DOR to 19 December 2010 instead of 11 August 2011.

6.  A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment or rebuttal.  He did not respond to the advisory opinion.

7.  ARNG Policy Memorandum Number 11-105, dated 14 June 2011, pertains to Federal recognition of warrant officer appointments in the ARNG.  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 of the United States effective 7 January 2011.

8.  An ARNG information paper, dated 22 July 2011, subject:  National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2011 Changes to Warrant Officer Federal Recognition Process, states:

	a.  Prior to 7 January 2011, all warrant officer Federal recognition appointments and promotions were approved by the Secretary of the Army.  The Secretary of the Army delegated this authority to the Director, NGB, and NGB published all Federal recognition orders for warrant officers.

	b.  On 7 January 2011, NDAA 2011 was signed into law and a new requirement was created that all warrant officer appointments and promotions would have to be signed by the President of the United States.  This new requirement removed NGB authority to approve and publish all warrant officer Federal recognition orders.  All warrant officer appointments and promotions are now required to be placed on a scroll and processed through various channels from the Department of the Army, G-1, up to the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF).

	c.  Before NDAA 2011, all ARNG warrant officer promotion effective DOR's were the date of the State promotion orders as stated by the FRB recommendations.  NDAA 2011 did not stipulate what the effective DOR of promotions would or would not be.  Currently, the assumption is that all warrant officer Federal recognition promotions will be the date the SECDEF signs the scroll.

9.  An ARNG information paper, dated 9 August 2011, subject:  Warrant Officer Federal Recognition Scroll 01-11 Status and Update for Scrolls 02-11 through 10-11, states the DOR will not be retroactive to the DOR on the State promotion orders.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions and his supporting evidence have been carefully considered.

2.  By law, effective 7 January 2011, all warrant officer promotions are required to be placed on a scroll and be processed through various channels up to the SECDEF.

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

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

	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 warrant officers to such a high level.  While it is true that 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 seems appropriate and reasonable and should not be adjusted.

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 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)                                         AR20110018957



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110018957



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1