IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	  17 January 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110022426 


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 records to adjust his Federal recognition date for promotion to chief warrant officer four (CW4) from 15 August 2011 to 15 June 2011.

2.  The applicant states:

* he was fully eligible for promotion to CW4 on 5 May 2011
* the Federal Recognition Board was held on 8 March 2011 and his promotion packet was uploaded on 25 March 2011
* National Guard Bureau (NGB) personnel found an error his officer branch made with his packet which delayed his submission
* his packet was uploaded again on 28 April 2011
* the error was made by his officer branch 
* his promotion was not effective until 15 August 2011
* he lost 2 months pay and time in grade due to an administrative error

3.  The applicant provides:

* memorandum from the Personnel Branch Officer, the State of Ohio, Adjutant General's Department, Columbus, OH, dated 7 November 2011
* Orders 067-914, issued by the same headquarters, dated 8 March 2011
* recommendation for his promotion, dated 14 February 2011


* 3 Federal recognition packet entries 
* NGB Special Orders Number 190 AR, dated 17 August 2011

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Having had prior enlisted service, the applicant was appointed as a Reserve warrant officer (WO) in the OHARNG.  He executed a DA Form 71 (Oath of Office – Military Personnel) on 11 July 1998.

2.  He was awarded military occupational specialty 920A (Property Accounting Technician) effective 11 July 1998.  He attended and successfully completed the Property Accounting Technician Warrant Officer Basic Course from 29 March 1999 through 27 May 1999.

3.  He was promoted to chief warrant officer two and extended Federal recognition with an effective date and date of rank of 22 August 2000.  He then attended and successfully completed the Property Accounting Technician WO Advanced Course (WOAC) from 26 September 2005 through 9 December 2005.

4.  He was promoted to chief warrant officer three (CW3) and extended Federal recognition with an effective date and date of rank of 5 May 2006.  He then attended and successfully completed the WO Staff Course from 12 April 2010 through 7 May 2010.

5.  A memorandum from the applicant's personnel branch officer at the State of Ohio Adjutant General's Department states:

* prior to the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), ARNG officers were promoted by the Chief, NGB
* after the 2011 NDAA, the authority was elevated from the Secretary of the service to the President of the United States
* when the new policy was signed into law, many officials were unaware of the significant changes it entailed
* the change led to a delay by the NGB in processing promotion actions
* the applicant was fully eligible for promotion to CW4 on 5 May 2011
* a Federal Recognition Board held by the OHARNG on 8 March 2011
* his promotion packet was uploaded on 25 March 2011
* NGB personnel found an error in the promotion packet made by a personnel branch office at the State of Ohio Adjutant General's Department which delayed submission
* his promotion packet was uploaded again on 28 April 2011


* his Federal recognition orders for promotion were effective 15 August 2011
* the administrative error made at the personnel branch office at the State of Ohio Adjutant General's Department caused the him to lose 2 months of pay and time in grade

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.  Requests for appointment will be staffed through the Department of the Army (delegated to the Secretary of Defense), 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 
5 May 2006 and he was favorably considered by a Federal Recognition Board that found him fully satisfactory.  The NGB issued him Federal recognition orders for promotion to CW4 effective 15 August 2011 despite his having met promotion qualification on 5 May 2011.

2.  As a result of the 2011 NDAA, the promotion of a CW3 to CW4 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 whereby WOs will 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 commissioned officer appointments and promotions, there was still a period during which the WO scrolling process was being perfected.  This development 


process resulted 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 a 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 and the change in law, the applicant's effective date of promotion appears to be appropriate and reasonable; therefore, there is an insufficient basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.

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)                                         AR20110022426



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110022426



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1