BOARD DATE:  13 August 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120017931


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 date of rank (DOR) for promotion to chief warrant officer three (CW3) from 14 February 2008 to 1 July 2007, the date she attained 6 years of time in grade (TIG).
 
2.  The applicant states:

* she was promoted to CW3 7 years after she was promoted to chief warrant officer two (CW2) despite being fully qualified after 6 years based on TIG as a CW2 and her completion of the military occupational specialty (MOS) 922A Warrant Officer Advanced Course (WOAC)
* she was promoted to CW2 on 1 July 2001 and she was fully qualified for promotion to CW3 on 1 July 2007
* she had 6 years of TIG as a CW2 on 1 July 2007 and she was a graduate of the 922A WOAC; however, she was not promoted until 7 months after she was fully qualified despite her excellent record

3.  The applicant provides:

* National Guard Bureau (NGB) Special Orders Number 290 AR, dated 16 October 2001
* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 2 April 2007
* DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), Food Service Technician WOAC, dated 15 June 2007
* NGB Special Orders Number 72 AR, dated 18 March 2008

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is currently serving as a CW3 in the Texas Army National Guard (ARNG).

2.  On 1 July 1999, the applicant was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer of the Army in the rank of warrant officer one in the Georgia ARNG (GAARNG).  On this same date, she executed the oaths of office.

3.  On 16 June 2000, she completed the Food Service Technician Warrant Officer Basic Course and was awarded MOS 922A (Food Service Technician).

4.  NGB Special Orders Number 290 AR, dated 16 October 2001, extended Federal recognition to her promotion to CW2 effective 1 July 2001.

5.  On 15 June 2007, she he completed the MOS 922A WOAC.

6.  On 22 January 2008, her group commander signed her recommendation for promotion to CW3.  There is no documentation in her Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR) that shows she was recommended for promotion prior to this date.

7.  On 14 February 2008, a Federal Recognition Examining Board was held by the GAARNG to determine if she was qualified to be awarded Federal recognition as a CW3.  The board found her physically, morally, generally, and professionally qualified for Federal recognition as a CW3.

8.  GAARNG Orders 064-048, dated 4 March 2008, promoted her to CW3 effective 14 February 2008.

9.  NGB Special Orders Number 72 AR, dated 18 March 2008, extended Federal recognition to her promotion to CW3 effective 14 February 2008.

10.  An advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Personnel Policy Division, NGB, in the processing of this case.  The advisory official recommended approval of the applicant's request for adjustment of her DOR to CW3, stating the following:

	a.  In accordance with National Guard Regulation 600-101 (Warrant Officers – Federal Recognition and Related Personnel Actions), paragraph 7-1, the promotion of warrant officers is a function of the State.  As in original appointment, 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 requirement prescribed herein.

	b.  Paragraph 7-2 provides that promotions will be accomplished only when an appropriate position vacancy exists in the unit.

	c.  The applicant met all qualifications for promotion to CW3 on 1 July 2007.

	d.  Historically, warrant officers would receive Federal recognition to the next higher grade within 30 days of being eligible.  There is nothing in the applicant's records to indicate unfavorable personnel actions to preclude recommendation of the promotion.  Further, the State point of contact has no knowledge of any actions that would have delayed the recommendation.

	e.  She met the TIG requirement for promotion to CW3 on 1 July 2007 and she met the military education requirement on 15 June 2007.  Since she was not the subject of any adverse actions, NGB recommends adjusting her DOR to 1 July 2007.

11.  On 13 June 2013, the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for information and to allow her the opportunity to submit comments or a rebuttal.  On 18 June 2013, she stated she concurred with the recommendation for approval.

12.  National Guard Regulation 600-101, paragraph 7-7, states an ARNG warrant officer must be recommended for promotion by the warrant officer's immediate commander to be considered for Federal recognition and concurrent Reserve of the Army promotion following State promotion to fill a unit vacancy.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends her DOR as a CW3 should be adjusted from 14 February 2008 to 1 July 2007, the date she attained 6 years of TIG as a CW2.

2.  The evidence of record shows:

* she was recommended for promotion by her immediate commander on 22 January 2008
* she was favorably considered by a Federal Recognition Examining Board on 14 February 2008, which found her qualified for Federal recognition as a CW3
* the GAARNG promoted her to CW3 effective 14 February 2008
* NGB extended Federal recognition to her promotion to CW3 effective 14 February 2008

3.  In accordance with the governing regulation, a warrant officer must be recommended for promotion by his or her immediate commander.  She was recommended for promotion on 22 January 2008 and received Federal recognition for her promotion less than 60 days later.

4.  Her records do not indicate why she wasn't recommended for promotion to CW3 sooner; however, the reasons she may not have been recommended sooner are irrelevant.  It was her commander's prerogative to determine when he felt she was ready for promotion or deserving of his recommendation.  Her promotion after she received her commander's recommendation was processed in a timely manner.  Accordingly, she is not entitled to the requested relief.

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 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)                                         AR20100000119



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120017931



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1