IN THE CASE OF:	   

		BOARD DATE:	  17 May 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110020507 


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 permanent Federal recognition date for promotion to the rank of chief warrant officer four (CW4) to 19 May 2011.

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  he requests his current date of rank (DOR) of 6 September 2011, as indicated on his Federal recognition order, be changed to 19 May 2011.  This is the date on his state promotion orders and the date the Federal Recognition Board (FRB) approved his promotion to be effective.

	b.  prior to enactment of National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2011 on 7 January 2011, all Army National Guard (ARNG) warrant officers were promoted by the Chief, National Guard Bureau (NGB) and Secretary of the Army under the provisions of Title 32, U.S. Code.  With the signing of NDAA 2011 into law, all ARNG warrant officer promotions were elevated from the Secretary of the Service level, to the President of the United States level.

	c.  when this new provision was signed into law it appears that no one at the appropriate levels were aware of the significant change and impact this would have on the promotion process for ARNG warrant officers.  As a result, no procedures had been established to staff ARNG warrant officer actions above the NGB level in anticipation of this change.  This resulted in all promotion actions being halted for ARNG warrant officers for several months, pending establishment of staffing procedures above NGB level in order to comply with this new provision of law.
	d.  past approval of ARNG warrant officer promotions, to include issuance of Federal recognition orders and DOR awarded as of the date the FRB, was accomplished at NGB level.  This administrative process was very efficient and timely.  However, with this new provision of law being enacted, many individuals above NGB level were added to the staffing process, and they had to be educated on the promotion of ARNG warrant officers, since they had not handled these actions previously.  This resulted in administrative delays in the promotion actions at various levels to allow staffing officers sufficient time to understand the ARNG warrant officer promotion process.

	e.  the time required to implement this new staffing process resulted in no ARNG warrant officer promotions during the period February 2011 through July 2011.  By the time promotion actions resumed, there was a significant backlog of promotion actions pending for ARNG warrant officers.  Unfortunately, this delay resulted in a loss financially, as well as a delayed DOR in the higher grade, which will further delay future promotions due to minimum time in grade required to meet promotion eligibility.

	f.  for example, he was boarded by an FRB held in the state of Montana on 
3 March 2011 and promoted on state promotion orders on 3 March 2011 with a DOR of 19 May 2011.  Upon completion of this action his state officer personnel manager forwarded the appropriate documents to NGB on 4 March 2011 for issuance of Federal recognition orders, finalizing his promotion action with a DOR to be approved by the FRB.  However, this delay pending development of staffing procedures resulted in his DOR being 6 September 2011, as compared to the date on his state promotion orders of 19 May 2011.

	g.  because of the extended administrative delay in developing the process, and the subsequent staffing of his promotion action, which was all beyond his control, he requests his effective date of promotion and DOR be adjusted to 
19 May 2011, the original date the FRB approved as his promotion effective date.

3.  The applicant provides:

* NGB Form 89 (Proceedings of a Federal Recognition Examining Board), dated 26 February 2011
* NGB Special Orders Number 212 AR, dated 7 September 2011
* Orders 062-006, issued by Joint Forces Headquarters - Montana, Office of The Adjutant General, Fort Harrison, MT, dated 3 March 2011


CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Having prior commissioned service in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), the applicant was appointed as a chief warrant officer two (CW2) in the Arizona Army National Guard (AZARNG) on 19 May 2000.  On 18 May 2001, he was honorably discharged from the AZARNG and he was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement).  He transferred to the Montana ARNG (MTARNG) on 
24 October 2001.  He was promoted to chief warrant officer three (CW3) effective 19 May 2005.

2.  On 26 February 2011, an FRB determined the applicant was qualified for Federal recognition in the rank of CW4.

3.  Orders 062-006, dated 3 March 2011, promoted the applicant to CW4 effective and with a DOR of 19 May 2011.

4.  NGB Special Orders Number 212 AR, dated 7 September 2011, awarded the applicant permanent Federal recognition for promotion to the rank of CW4 effective 6 September 2011.

5.  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.

6.  An ARNG information paper, dated 22 July 2011, subject:  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 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 National Guard warrant officer promotions effective DOR was 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.

7.  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 that warrant officers 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 development process did result in the delay of the promotions of all ARNG warrant officers, and probably warrant officers 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 warrant officers 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 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 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)                                         AR20110020507



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110020507



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1