BOARD DATE:	  8 November 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120001757 


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 his date of rank (DOR) for chief warrant officer two (CW2) be back dated to 22 February 2011, the date of the Federal Recognition Board and subsequent State promotion. 

2.  The applicant states due to administrative errors and lack of a clear process the promotion packet was delayed for months.  The scroll process is supposed to run between 60 to 90 days.  If the Army G-1 and the National Guard Bureau (NGB) had been competent and prepared for the change in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), his promotion would have been processed in a timely manner and resulted in the original effective date for his promotion.  NGB was unable to even produce guidance on packet submission until the publication of NGB Policy Memorandum 11-015, dated 14 June 2011.

3.  The applicant provides:

* NGB 89 (Proceedings of a Federal Recognition Examining Board), dated 22 February 2011
* State promotion order, 23 February 2011
* Federal Recognition order, 16 August 2011
* NGB promotion order, dated 16 August 2011
* NGB Policy Memorandum #11-015, dated 14 June 2011
* NGB Policy Memorandum #11-045, dated 26 July 2011
* Information Paper, dated 22 July 2011, Subject: NDAA 11 Changes to Warrant Officer Federal Recognition Process

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  He was appointed a warrant officer one (WO1) in the Minnesota Army National Guard (MNARNG) on 7 October 2008.  He previously served 5 years, 
and 21 days in the MNARNG in an enlisted status.  

2.  He completed initial entry rotary wing (IERW/CH-47) Track Class on 26 May 2010.

3.  On 22 February 2011, a Federal Recognition Examining Board recommended he be granted Federal recognition as a CW2.

4.  Land Component, Joint Force Headquarters, MN, Orders 054-1012, dated 
23 February 2011, promoted him to CW2 effective 22 February 2011.

5.  NGB Special Orders Number 189 AR, dated 16 August 2011, extended him Federal recognition for CW2, effective 12 August 2011.

6.  NGB Memorandum, dated 16 August 2011, promoted him to CW2 effective 12 August 2011 in the Reserve of the Army for service in the ARNG.

7.  NGR 600-101 prescribes policies and procedures for ARNG warrant officer personnel management.  Chapter 7 states that promotion of warrant officers in the ARNG is a function of the State.  As in original appointments, a warrant officer 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 military occupational specialty 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.

	a.  Table 7-1 states the minimum time in grade for promotion to CW2 is 2 years in the lower grade.  

	b.  Table 7-2 states the minimum military education requirement for promotion to CW2 is completion of the Warrant Officer Basic Course (WOBC) or equivalent certification within 2 years from date of initial appointment as WO1.  

8.  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, section 571b introduced 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 (delegated to the Secretary of Defense).  Requests for appointment will be staffed through the Department of the Army, 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.  His DOR as a WO1 was 7 October 2008 and he completed the IERW/CH-47 Track Class on 26 May 2010.  He met the minimum time-in-grade requirement for promotion to CW2 on 7 October 2010.  There is no evidence of record and he has not provided any official documentation as to why he was not promoted in October 2010.

2.  He was recommended for Federal recognition as a CW2 on 22 February 2011.  The MNARNG promoted him to CW2 effective 22 February 2011.  On 
16 August 2011, the NGB issued him Federal recognition orders for promotion to CW2 effective 12 August 2011.

3.  As a result of the NDAA 2011, the promotion of a WO1 to CW2 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.

4.  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)                                         AR20120001757





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120001757



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1