IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  8 November 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120007474 


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 four (CW4)/W-4 be changed from 28 October 2011 to 18 May 2011, the date he was promoted by the State of North Carolina.

2.  He states the date of Federal recognition has in the past been backdated to the date of promotion in the State of duty.  With 10 years of time in grade, he was eligible for promotion to chief warrant officer 4 (CW4) upon completion of the Warrant Officer Staff Course.  Due to a change in law in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2011, the National Guard warrant officer promotion process was changed to a scroll process.  This change resulted in no National Guard warrant officers being promoted from January 2011 until 11 August 2011.  As a result a large backlog was created.  He completed the requirements as outlined by then-current policy and received State [promotion] orders dated 18 May 2011 with a DOR of 18 May 2011.  The change in law resulted in long delays that were not his fault and were beyond his control.

3.  He provides a promotion memorandum, orders, a printout of a page from the Army National Guard (ARNG) G-1 Personnel Gateway website, and a DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Following periods of enlisted service in the Regular Army and California ARNG (CAARNG), on 20 August 1991, the applicant was appointed as a Reserve warrant officer of the Army as an aviator in the rank/grade of warrant officer 1/W-1.  

2.  On 9 February 1994, the Office of the Adjutant General, State of California, issued Orders 26-32 promoting him to chief warrant officer two (CW2)/W-2 effective 19 January 1994.  On 24 February 1994, the National Guard Bureau (NGB) issued Special Orders Number 11AR announcing extension of Federal recognition to him in the rank CW2 effective 19 January 1994.  

3.  On 16 March 2001, the Office of the Adjutant General, State of California, issued Orders 75-174 promoting him to chief warrant officer three (CW3)/W-3 effective 14 March 2001.  On 29 March 2001, NGB issued Special Orders Number 87AR announcing extension of Federal recognition to him in the rank CW3 effective 14 March 2001.

4.  On 13 July 2006, he was discharged from the CAARNG and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Retired Reserve) after completing 21 years, 4 months, and 14 days total service for pay.  

5.  On 10 September 2009, the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, St. Louis, MO, issued Orders C-09-916323 releasing him from the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) and assigning him to the North Carolina ARNG (NCARNG) effective 2 August 2009 by reason of appointment.  On 23 October 2009, NGB issued Special Orders Number 257AR announcing extension of Federal recognition to him in the rank CW3 effective 3 August 2009.

6.  On 18 May 2011, Joint Force Headquarters, Department of Crime Control and Public Safety, State of North Carolina, issued Orders 138-896.  The orders promoted him to CW4 effective 18 May 2011.  

7.  On 31 October 2011, NGB issued Special Orders Number 276AR announcing extension of Federal recognition to him in the rank CW4 effective 28 October 2011.  

8.  On 11 June 2012, the Acting G-1, NCARNG, notified him he was granted conditional release from the NCARNG and authorized 90 days for him to obtain an appointment in the CAARNG.

9.  On 20 June 2012, Joint Force Headquarters, CAARNG, issued Orders 172-1030 appointing him in the ARNG as a CW4 and assigning him to a CAARNG aviation unit effective 18 June 2012.  

10.  On 22 August 2012, NGB issued Special Orders Number 309AR extending Federal recognition to him in the rank CW4 effective 18 June 2012.  

11.  National Guard Regulation 600-101 (WO - Federal Recognition and Related Personnel Actions) prescribes policies and procedures for ARNG warrant officer (WO) personnel management.  Chapter 7 states promotion of WOs 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.  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.

12.  NGB Policy Memorandum 11-015, Subject: Federal Recognition of WOs 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.

13.  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.  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 applicant was promoted to CW4 by the State of North Carolina effective 18 May 2011.  The NGB issued orders extending Federal recognition to him as a CW4 effective 28 October 2011 despite him having been promoted by the State effective 18 May 2011.

2.  As a result of the 2011 NDAA, promotion to CW4 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.  The 2011 NDAA required 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 resulted 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.

3.  In view of the foregoing evidence and the change in law, the applicant's effective date of promotion to CW4 is appropriate and should not be changed.

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)                                         AR20120007474





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120007474



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1