IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  12 April 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120004600 


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 an adjustment of his Federal recognition order for promotion to chief warrant officer two (CW2) from 28 October 2011 to 19 March 2011. 

2.  The applicant states due to administrative errors and a lack of the Office of the Judge Advocate General and Army G-1 having a clear process his promotion packet was delayed over 7 months.  Had the National Guard Bureau (NGB) and Army G-1 been competent and prepared for the change in the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) his promotion would have been processed in a timely manner.  

3.  The applicant provides:

* NGB Form 89 (Proceedings of a Federal Recognition Board)
* Orders 145-999, dated 25 May 2011
* Memoranda dated, 14 June 2011, 22 July 2011 and 31 October 2011
* Information Paper dated, 22 July 2011
 
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Having prior enlisted service, the applicant was appointed as a Reserve warrant officer (WO) in the Minnesota Army National Guard and he executed an oath of office on 26 September 2009.
2.  On 20 October 2009, the NGB published Special Orders Number 254 AR extending him Federal recognition for his initial appointment in the Army National Guard (ARNG), effective 26 September 2009.

3.  He attended and successfully completed the Field Artillery Targeting Technician Warrant Officer Basic Course (WOBC) from 19 October 2010 to
11 March 2011.

4.  On 25 May 2011, the Joint Forces Headquarters – Minnesota, Office of the Adjutant General published Orders 145-999 promoting him to CW2, effective     19 March 2011 with assignment to the position of Safety Officer in Charge, 131A0, (PUFAA/140/02).  The order states the “effective date of the promotion will be the date the permanent Federal Recognition Order is published.”

5.  On 31 October 2011, NGB Special Orders Number 276 AR were published extending the applicant Federal recognition in the rank of CW2, effective 28 October 2011.  

6.  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.

7.  National Guard Regulation 600-101 (Warrant Officers - Federal Recognition and Related Personnel Actions) 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.  

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, 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 (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.  As a result of the 2011 NDAA, 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.

2.  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)                                         AR20120004600



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120004600



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1