IN THE CASE OF:	   

		BOARD DATE:	  10 May 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120001499 


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).

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  his 11 August 2011 DOR should be adjusted to 4 February 2011 due to the massive change in procedures of the Army National Guard (ARNG) Warrant Officer Federal recognition process;

	b.  the delay was in reaction to changes and development of a process which in no way was the fault of the Soldier;

	c.  the actions taken for this promotion to be completed in a timely manner were done by the Soldier and the State according to previous standards and practices;

	d.  he appeared before a Federal Recognition Board on 6 December 2010 and he was approved for promotion to the next higher grade;

	e.  the State order was published on 31 January 2011 with an effective date of 4 February 2011, and the packet was submitted to the National Guard Bureau (NGB) for action;

	f.  on 7 January 2011, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 11 was signed into effect and it affected the promotion Federal Recognition approval process;
	g.  the dissemination of information to the States on the changes in the Federal recognition process resulted in delays of promotion;

	h.  information was provided to the Stat G1 sections but the official ARNG-HRH Policy Memorandum #11-045 was not published until 22 July 2011;

	i.  those warrant officer promotion requests submitted by the States from 7 January through 21 July 2011 were done so without any formal policy in place;

	j.  according to an ARNG-HRH Information Paper, dated 22 July 2001, Subject – NDAA 11 Changes to Warrant Officer Federal Recognition Process, the process was not well understood and the standards were not established;

	k.  promotion packets that did not meet the unknown standards were returned, which was one method of figuring out the standards as the process unfolded;

	l.  there was delays in receiving guidance from the Office of The Adjutant General (OTJAG) and Army G-1;

	m.  according to National Guard Regulation 600-101 (Warrant Officers – Federal Recognition and Related Personnel Actions), for promotion to Chief Warrant Officer Three through Five, a warrant officer must have 5 to 6 years time in grade before they are eligible for promotion to the next level; and

	n.  this has seriously impacted the timely promotions of many warrant officers.

3.  The applicant provides:

* NGB Special Orders Number 188 AR, dated 16 August 2011
* Orders 031-723, issued by Land Component, Joint Force Headquarters Kansas, Topeka, KA, dated 31 January [2011]
* NGB Memorandum, subject:  Federal Recognition of Warrant Officer Appointments in the ARNG (ARNG-HRH Policy Memorandum #11-015), dated 14 June 2011
* NGB Memorandum, subject:  Guidance Concerning Applications for the Federal Recognition of Warrant Officers (ARNG-HRH Policy Memorandum #11-045), dated 22 July 2011
* ARNG-HRH Information Paper, subject:  NDAA 11 Changes to Warrant Officer Federal Recognition Process, dated 22 July 2011
* Extract of National Guard Regulation 600-101, dated 1 October 1996

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  With prior enlisted service in the U.S. Air Force Reserve, the applicant enlisted in the Kansas Army National Guard (KSARNG) on 16 May 2008, for a period of 4 years and 10 months, in the pay grade of E-4.

2.  He was discharged on 3 February 2009 to accept an appointment as a warrant officer in the Army.

3.  NGB Special Orders Number 42 AR, dated 25 February 2009, awarded the applicant Federal recognition for his initial appointment to the rank of Warrant Officer One (WO1), effective 4 February 2009.

4.  The applicant executed his Oaths of Office with the KSARNG, in the rank of WO1 on 4 February 2009.

5.  Orders 031-723, dated 31 January [2011], promoted the applicant to the rank of CW2 via unit vacancy, effective, 4 February 2011.  The orders state that he would not be paid nor wear the insignia of grade to which promoted until the Federal Recognition was confirmed.

6.  NGB Special Orders Number 188 AR, dated 16 August 2011, awarded the applicant permanent Federal recognition for promotion to the rank of Chief Warrant Officer Two (CW2), effective 11 August 2011.

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.  ARNG Policy Memorandum Number 11-045, dated 22 July 2011, provides guidance to reduce processing time for applications for the Federal recognition of ARNG warrant officer initial appointments and appointments to a higher grade.

9.  The ARNG-HRH Information Paper, dated 22 July 2011, states:

	a.  Previous 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 11 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 go on a scroll and processed through various channels from the Department of the Army G-1 up to the Secretary of Defense.

	c.  Before NDAA 11, the effective DOR for all ARNG warrant officer promotions was the date of the State promotion orders as stated by the Federal Recognition Board recommendations.  NDAA 11 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 Secretary of Defense signs the scroll.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

3.  The delay in the applicant's promotion resulted from a statutory change in the procedures for the promotion of WOs that was mandated by NDAA 11 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 warrant officer appointment and promotion scrolls were developed and refined.

4.  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 resulted in the delay of the promotions of all ARNG warrant officers, and probably warrant officers from other service components, recommended for promotion during the months immediately following the enactment of the scrolling requirements.  

5.  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.

6.  In view of the foregoing evidence and the change in law, the applicant's effective date of rank seems appropriate and reasonable.  Therefore, there is no 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)                                         AR20120001499



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120001499



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1