IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  14 June 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120006342 


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 adjustment of her Federal recognition order for promotion to chief warrant officer three (CW3) from 7 February 2012 to 
21 September 2011.

2.  The applicant states she submitted her promotion packet on 10 June 2010.  State orders were published with an effective date of 21 July 2010 but her promotion packet did not enter the scroll until on or about 26 October 2011 due to an error in the packet at the State level.  It sat on the scroll for 84 days.  The total number of days from the state order effective date to the effective date of the actual promotion was 223 days.  She contends that she would have been promoted effective 21 September 2011 had the state processed her packet in a timely manner.

3.  The applicant provides copies of:

* Memorandum, 71st Battlefield Surveillance Brigade, dated 10 June 2011
* National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 89 (Proceedings of a Federal Recognition Examining Board, with attached memorandum, dated 21 July 2011
* Orders 214-1041, State of Texas, dated 2 August 2011
* Orders 219-1018, State of Texas, dated 7 August 2011
* Orders 219-1019, State of Texas, dated 7 August 2011
* Orders 243-1089, State of Texas, dated 31 August 2011
* Orders 243-1091, State of Texas, dated 31 August 2011
* Orders 244-1006, State of Texas, dated 1 September 2011
* Special Orders Number 61 AR, NGB, dated 22 February 2012
* Special Orders Number 68 AR, NGB, dated 23 February 2012
* Promotion Memorandum, NGB, dated 22 February 2012 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Special Orders Number 40 AR, NGB, dated 20 February 2007, announced the applicant's promotion to CW2 with an effective date of 4 February 2007.

2.  NGB Form 89 shows that the applicant, a member of the Texas Army National Guard (ARNG) was examined on 5 June 2011 for promotion to CW3.  She was found qualified for and was recommended for promotion to CW3.

3.  Special Orders Number 61 AR, NGB, dated 22 February 2012, as amended by Special Orders Number 68 AR, NGB, dated 23 February 2012, indicate the applicant received Federal recognition for promotion to CW3 effective 7 February 2012.

4.  National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-101 (Warrant Officers (WO's) - Federal Recognition and Related Personnel Actions) prescribes policies and procedures for ARNG WO personnel management.

	a.  Chapter 7 states that promotion of WO's 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.

	b.  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.

	c.  A WO must complete the minimum years of promotion service as shown in Table 7-1 of NGR 600-101 to attain eligibility for promotion and receive Federal recognition in the higher grade.  Table 7-1 states that the minimum time in grade for promotion to CW3 is 4 years in the lower grade.

5.  NGB Policy Memorandum 11-015, Subject: Federal Recognition of WO's 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 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 (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.  The applicant contends that her effective date and date of rank for promotion to CW3 should be adjusted to 21 September 2011 because the State erred and delayed her promotion packet.

2.  The available evidence clearly shows that in June 2011 the applicant was properly examined and found qualified for promotion to CW3.  Subsequently, her promotion packet was forwarded to the NGB for further processing.  In February 2012, the NGB issued her Federal recognition orders for promotion to CW3 with an effective date of 7 February 2012.

3.  However, as a result of the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the promotion of a CW2 to CW3 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, the applicant's request should be denied.

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)                                         AR20120006342



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120006342



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1