IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    27 March 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120002649 


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 Federal recognition date and date of rank (DOR) to 21 May 2011.

2.  The applicant states the authority to promote Army National Guard (ARNG) warrant officers (WOs) was changed by the Fiscal year (FY) 2011 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).  The National Guard Bureau (NGB) was not aware of the changes which resulted in an extended administrative delay.

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of his application:

* Self-Authored Statement
* NGB Special Orders Number 333 AR, dated 19 December 2011
* NGB memorandum, dated 19 December 2011
* State Promotion Orders, with amendment
* NGB Policy Memorandum 06-068
* NGB Memoranda, dated 14 June 2011, and 22 July 2012
* Information Paper, dated 22 July 2011
* NGR 600-101, dated 1 October 1996

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  After having prior enlisted service in the Regular Army, the applicant was appointed a warrant officer one (WO1) in the ARNG on 7 August 1998.  He was promoted to chief warrant officer three (CW3) on 17 November 2005.

2.  On 31 May 2011, the Kansas ARNG published Orders 151-714 promoting the applicant to chief warrant officer four (CW4) with an effective date and DOR of 
21 May 2011. 

3.  On 19 December 2011, the NGB published Special Orders Number 333 AR extending him Federal recognition for promotion to CW4 effective 15 December 2011.

4.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1211 (Officers: ARNG of the United States) states when an officer of the ARNG to whom temporary Federal recognition has been extended is appointed as a Reserve for service as a member of the ARNG of the United States, his appointment shall bear the date of the temporary recognition and shall be considered to have been accepted and effective on that date.

5.  National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-101 (WO - Federal Recognition and Related Personnel Actions) prescribes policies and procedures for ARNG WO personnel management.  Chapter 7 states that promotion of WOs in the ARNG is a function of the State.  As in original appointments, a WO 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 MOS 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 (FRB).

6.  NGB Policy Memorandum 11-015, Subject: Federal Recognition of WOs 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.  

7.  Title 10, U.S. Code, sections 571b and 12241b introduced a requirement that all WO appointments and promotions to chief WO 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 DOR as a CW4 was determined by the Kansas ARNG to be 21 May 2011.  He was considered by an FRB that found him fully satisfactory in his physical qualifications, moral character, and general qualifications.  The NGB issued him Federal recognition orders for promotion to CW4 effective 15 December 2011 despite him having met promotion qualification on 21 May 2011. 

2.  However, 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 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 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 seems appropriate and reasonable and should not change.


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)                                         AR20120002649



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120002649



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1