Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120008134
Original file (20120008134.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  31 July 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120008134 


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 that his Army National Guard (ARNG) warrant officer  (WO) promotion date of rank and effective date to chief warrant officer two (CW2) be corrected to 8 April 2011.

2.  The applicant states his unit and State personnel offices did not process his promotion properly.

3.  The applicant provides in support of his request copies of a memorandum from his unit commander, dated 20 June 2011; State ARNG promotion orders with an effective date of 8 April 2011; and a State Adjutant General's memorandum, dated 6 April 2012. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is an Ohio ARNG WO.  His unit recommended him for promotion to the rank of CW2 on 20 June 2011.

2.  Ohio National Guard Orders 179-907, dated 28 June 2011, promoted the applicant to CW2 and his date of rank and effective date was the date the Chief, National Guard Bureau extended him Federal recognition. 

3.  His date of rank as a CW2 is 11 February 2012.


4.  A Memorandum from an Ohio Adjutant General's personnel officer, dated              6 April 2012, explained that the State failed to process the applicant's case in a timely manner and suggested that his promotion be back dated to either 20 June 2011 or to his original promotion eligibility date of 8 April 2011. 
 
5.  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 U.S., his appointment shall bear the date of the temporary recognition and shall be considered to have been accepted and effective on that date.

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

7.  NGB Policy Memorandum 11-015, Subject: Federal Recognition of WO's in the ARNG, dated 14 June 2011, states that ARNG WO's are initially appointed and are also promoted by the State or Territory in which the officer is assigned.  The Chief, NGB, reviews and approves those actions.  

8.  In January 2011 the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) changed the WO promotion protocol causing a backlog.  These changes, codified in Title 10, U.S. Code, sections 571b and 12241b, introduced requirements that all WO appointments and promotions to chief WO grades in the ARNG must be made by the President of the United States.  As a result, effective 7 January 2011, all initial appointments of WO's 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 still add 90 days or more to the process for approval for appointments or promotions to be completed.



DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's unit and the Ohio ARNG state the applicant's promotion was delayed because they mishandled the case.  However, if his case had been handled as they claim it should, it would still have been delayed by the Federalization of the process. 

2.  As a result of the 2011 NDAA, the promotion of a WO1 to CW2 is now issued by the President of the U.S. and 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 WO's that was mandated by the 2011 NDAA that WO's 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 WO's 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 WO's 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 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)                                         AR20120008134





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120008134



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009363

    Original file (20120009363.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of his records to show his effective date and date of rank (DOR) to chief warrant officer two (CW2) as 15 August 2011. 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. 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120008769

    Original file (20120008769.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests his date of rank (DOR) to Chief Warrant Officer Two (CW2) be changed from 25 April 2012 to 15 August 2011. 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. Section 502, Fiscal Year 2011 NDAA, authority for appointment of warrant officers in the grade of W-1 by commission and standardization of warrant officer appointment authority, mandates that all...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120016313

    Original file (20120016313.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    This resulted in administrative delays in promotion actions at various levels to allow staffing officers time to understand the new promotion process. c. He was boarded by a Federal Recognition Board (FRB) on 27 March 2012 and promoted on State orders with a DOR of 27 March 2012. The evidence of record shows the applicant was appointed as a WO in the ARNG on 9 November 2011 and he completed WOBC on 8 March 2012.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010449

    Original file (20120010449.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    With the signing of the NDAA 2011 into law, promotions were elevated from the Secretary of the Service level to the President of the United States and it appears that no one was aware of the significant impact the change would have on the promotion process for ARNG warrant officers and as a result, no procedures had been established to process promotion actions above the NGB level. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1211 (Officers: ARNG of the U.S.) states when an officer of the ARNG to whom...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002059

    Original file (20120002059.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of his promotion date as a chief warrant officer two (CW2) in the Ohio Army National Guard (OHARNG) from 26 January 2012 to 22 April 2011. The evidence of record shows the applicant was appointed as a WO in the OHARNG on 19 January 2011 but for unknown reasons, his Federal recognition packet may not have been timely forwarded by the State to the NGB for consideration. The promotion orders could not be processed until the State requested federal recognition...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006729

    Original file (20120006729.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    c. Under the previous promotion procedure, the administrative process was very efficient and ARNG WO promotions were granted Federal recognition as of the date of the Federal Recognition Board (FRB). He was appointed as a Reserve WO in the ARNGUS and extended Federal recognition as a warrant officer one (WO1)/pay grade W-1 in the SDARNG effective 28 October 2009. The delay in the applicant's promotion resulted from a statutory change in the procedures for the promotion of WO's that was...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120014927

    Original file (20120014927.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    c. He was boarded by a Federal Recognition Board (FRB) on 27 March 2012 and promoted on State orders with a DOR of 27 March 2012. The evidence of record shows the applicant was appointed as a WO in the ARNG on 17 November 2011 and he completed WOBC on 9 March 2012. It is very likely that the delay in the applicant's promotion resulted from a statutory change in the procedures for the promotion of WO's that was mandated by the 2011 NDAA that WO's be placed on a scroll and staffed to the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004577

    Original file (20120004577.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 October 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120004577 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant stated her promotion was delayed due to processing her request for Federal recognition as a result of change in the requirement based on the NDAA of 2011. b. NGB issued her Federal recognition orders for promotion to CW2 effective 4 December 2011.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019445

    Original file (20110019445.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 31 July 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110019445 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. In February 2011, a Federal Recognition Board (FRB) was held by the VAARNG to determine if the applicant was qualified to be awarded Federal recognition as a CW2. 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011992

    Original file (20110011992.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of his date of rank (DOR) to chief warrant officer two (CW2). Section 14308 (f) states the effective date of a promotion of a Reserve officer of the Army who is extended Federal recognition in the next higher grade in the ARNG shall be the date on which such Federal recognition in that grade is so extended. The evidence of record shows the applicant was appointed as a WO in the ARNG on 20 September 2008 and he completed the IER Wing Aviator on 25 August 2010.