IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 14 May 2013
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120019426
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 record to show he was promoted from staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 to warrant officer one (WO1) in the Army National Guard (ARNG).
2. The applicant states he completed WO school in April 1964, but he was never promoted to the rank of WO. He would now like his WO rank.
3. The applicant provides:
* Diploma, WO Indoctrination Training
* DD Form 4 (Enlistment Record - Armed Forces of the United States)
* Certificate for ARNG service
* National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service)
* NGB Form 64 (Application for xxxx [illegible] Trainer)
* DA Form 759 (Individual Flight Record - Army Aviator)
* DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record)
* Standard Form 89 (Report of Medical History)
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicants failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicants failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.
2. The applicant's records are not available for review with this case. All records are provided by the applicant and appear to be sufficient to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case.
3. The available records show he was born on xx September 1935. Some of the records he provides are illegible; however, it appears he had prior service in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve (USMCR) from 27 June 1953 to 26 June 1961.
4. He enlisted in the Minnesota ARNG (MNARNG) on 18 April 1963. He completed the WO Rotary Wing Course from 17 March to 6 June 1964. He was honorably separated from the MNARNG in the rank/grade of specialist five (SP5)/E-5 on 7 June 1964.
5. He provides an illegible NGB Form 64 and some medical documents. He also provides:
a. A Certificate, dated 7 June 1964, showing he enlisted in the MNARNG on
18 April 1963 and he was assigned to Company B, 47th Aviation, from 18 April 1963 to 7 June 1964. He was advanced to the rank of specialist four/E-4 on
18 April 1963 and he was promoted to SP5/E-5 on 5 June 1963.
b. A Diploma, dated 17 April 1964, showing he successfully completed WO Indoctrination Training, Preflight- Class 64-7, at the U.S. Army Primary Helicopter School, Fort Wolters, Mineral Wells, TX.
c. An NGB Form 22 that shows he served in the ARNG from 18 April 1963 to 7 June 1964.
d. An Individual Flight Record for April and May 1964 that shows, as a student pilot, he held the rank/grade of SP5/E-5 and performed 17.3 total flying time.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The available evidence shows the applicant previously served in the USMCR from 27 June 1953 to 26 June 1961. He enlisted in the MNARNG on 18 April 1963 and he was honorably discharged on 7 June 1964. During his ARNG period of enlistment, he completed the WO Rotary Wing Course from 17 March to 6 June 1964.
2. All the records he provides show his rank/grade as SP5/E-5. The evidence that he provides does not show that he submitted an application for an appointment as a WO in the ARNG or that a State Federal Recognition Board recommended him for appointment or that he was extended Federal recognition by the NGB.
3. Enlisted Soldiers "enlist" in a component of the Armed Forces whereas officers (warrant or commissioned) are "appointed." Once serving in an enlisted or an officer status, each category of Soldiers is governed by a separate promotion system. Enlisted Soldiers are not promoted to a WO grade.
4. The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to support this request.
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) AR20120019426
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120019426
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018523
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 January 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140018523 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests correction of his effective date of promotion and date of rank (DOR) as a chief warrant officer two (CW2) in the Minnesota Army National Guard (MNARNG) from 13 July 2012 to 18 February 2012. On 26 March 2012, a Federal Recognition Board (FRB) was held by the MNARNG to determine if the applicant was qualified to be awarded Federal recognition for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120001757
The applicant requests his date of rank (DOR) for chief warrant officer two (CW2) be back dated to 22 February 2011, the date of the Federal Recognition Board and subsequent State promotion. The applicant provides: * NGB 89 (Proceedings of a Federal Recognition Examining Board), dated 22 February 2011 * State promotion order, 23 February 2011 * Federal Recognition order, 16 August 2011 * NGB promotion order, dated 16 August 2011 * NGB Policy Memorandum #11-015, dated 14 June 2011 * NGB...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120005266
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 28 August 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120005266 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. 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 to which the officer is assigned. The evidence of record shows the MNARNG promoted him to CW2 with an effective date 4 October 2011.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110023520
The applicant requests an adjustment of his Federal recognition order for promotion to chief warrant officer three (CW3) from 12 August 2011 to 16 February 2011. Officials at the NGB opined, in effect, that the delay in the applicants Federal Recognition was due to a change in the law that required warrant officers (WO's) to be approved at a higher level and it took a period of time to refine the process; however, the delay was not the result of an error or injustice specifically related...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130004273
The applicant requests, in effect, adjustment of the effective date/date of rank for his Federal recognition order promoting him to chief warrant officer two (CW2) from 19 February 2013 to 5 September 2012. Public Law 112-239, dated 2 January 2013, provides that if a warrant officer one (WO1) of the National Guard is promoted to the grade of chief warrant officer two (CW2) to fill a vacancy in a federally recognized unit in the National Guard Federal recognition is automatically extended to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004577
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 | CY2009 | 20090004606
The applicant requests, in effect, correction to his date of rank for chief warrant officer two (CW2) from 16 August 2007 to 31 March 2007, with all back pay and entitlements. In this case of ARNG officers, the State will publish a State promotion order and forward it to the NGB-ARP no earlier than 90 days prior to the officer meeting the minimum time in grade requirement provided the officer had completed the WOBC and is otherwise eligible for promotion. As a result, the Board recommends...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004562
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 31 May 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120004562 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Previous to 7 January 2011, all warrant officer Federal recognition appointments and promotions were approved by the Secretary of the Army. c. Before NDAA 2011, all ARNG warrant officer promotions effective date of promotion for pay and other purposes was the date of the State promotion orders as stated by the Federal recognition board recommendations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130005257
The applicant requests: * correction of his date of rank (DOR) to chief warrant officer two (CW2) from 19 February 2013 to 10 November 2012 and his time in grade (TIG) * compensation for the wages he lost as a result of his delayed promotion 2. However, given the fact that the State published the promotion order on 21 November 2012 and the fact that delays in his packet being processed both at the State level and at NGB were no fault of the applicant, and now based on Public Law 112-239, as...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130005753
The applicant requests his effective date of promotion and date of rank (DOR) to chief warrant officer two (CW2) in the Army National Guard (ARNG) be adjusted from 19 February 2013 to 12 January 2013. b. NGB, Federal Recognition section provided the processing history of the applicant's request as follows: * 21 November 2012, the Federal Recognition section reviewed the applicant's promotion packet * 26 November 2012, the applicant's promotion packet was accepted by Human Resource...