IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  24 January 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120004798 


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 chief warrant officer two date of rank (DOR).  

2.  The applicant states, based on National Guard Bureau (NGB) policy, he should have been promoted to CW2 upon completion of the warrant officer basic course (WOBC) and his DOR should be adjusted to 29 April 2011.   

3.  The applicant provides the documents identified in item 9 (In support of this application, I submit as evidence the following attached documents) of his application in support of his request.  

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  After having prior enlisted service in the Army National Guard (ARNG), on
9 February 2011, the applicant was appointed a warrant officer one (WO1) in the Utah ARNG.  

2.  On 30 April 2011, the applicant completed the WOBC in specialty 352P (Voice Intercept Technician). 



3.  On 10 May 2011, the Utah ARNG published Orders 130-014 promoting the applicant to CW2 effective and with a DOR of 30 April 2011. 

4.  On 5 August 2011, the NGB published Special Orders (SO) Number (#) 180 AR extending the applicant Federal Recognition as a WO1, effective 30 April 2011.

5.  On 2 February 2012, the NGB published SO # 38 AR extending the applicant Federal recognition as a CW2 effective 20 January 2012.  

6.  In connection with the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the NGB.  It recommends the applicant’s request be disapproved.  The reasons cited for the recommendation is the change in procedures for the promotion of warrant officers that was mandated in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011.  

7.  On 8 November 2012, the applicant was provided a copy of the NGB advisory opinion in order to have the opportunity to reply and/or rebut its contents.  To date, he has failed to respond.  

8.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 12211 (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/her appointment shall bear the date of the temporary recognition and shall be considered to have been accepted and effective on that date.

9.  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.  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.



10.  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.

11.  Title 10, U.S. Code, sections 571b and 12241b 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.  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 Utah ARNG appointed the applicant a WO1 on 9 February 2011, and that orders were published granting him Federal Recognition in that grade on 5 August 2011.   

2.  On 29 April 2011, the applicant completed the WOBC in specialty 352P (Voice Intercept Technician), and on 10 May 2011, the State published orders promoting him to CW2 effective 30 April 2011.  

3.  On 2 February 2012, the NGB issued SO Number 38 AR extending the applicant Federal Recognition as a CW2, effective 20 January 2012, despite the fact he met the promotion qualifications on 30 April 2011.

4.  However, as a result of the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act (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.

5.  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)                                         AR20120004798



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120004798



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1