IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  16 May 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130006010 


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) to Chief Warrant Officer Four (CW4) from 12 August 2011 to 6 May 2011.

2.  The applicant states in accordance with National Guard Regulation 600-101 (Warrant Officer Federal Recognition and Personnel Actions) and the Federal Recognition Board which convened in the State of Florida, her DOR was originally effective 6 May 2011.  She states that her DOR should be adjusted due to excessive administrative delays and errors in processing her request for Federal recognition which was a result of a change in a requirement based on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2011, released in February 2011, and formally announced by the National Guard Bureau (NGB) on 14 June 2011.  She states in the time between the receipt of her promotion packet and the cutting of her orders excessive delays occurred to include a 2-week period in which work was halted on all warrant officer promotions, during which time the new process was developed and refined.

3.  The applicant provides:

* NGB Memorandum, dated 14 June 2011
* Audit History Page, dated 9 June 2011
* Florida National Guard Orders 987-040, dated 20 March 2011
* NGB Special Orders Number 189 AR, dated 16 August 2011
* NGB Memorandum, 7 March 2011


CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  With prior enlisted service in the Florida Army National Guard (FLARNG), the applicant executed her Oaths of Office in the FLARNG on 6 May 1999, in the rank of warrant officer one (WO1).  

2.  She was promoted to Chief Warrant Officer Two (CW2), effective 6 May 2001. She was promoted to Chief Warrant Officer Three (CW3), effective 6 May 2006.

3.  On 7 March 2011, the Chief of Staff, Army National Guard (ARNG) notified the State Adjutant of Florida that the applicant was recommended for promotion under the provisions of National Guard Regulation 600-101, chapter 7.

4.  On 28 March 2011, Florida National Guard Orders 087-040 were published promoting the applicant to CW4, effective 6 May 2011.  These orders stated that the effective date of promotion cited would be adjusted to be concurrent with the effective date of Federal recognition in the Army National Guard of the United States when granted by the Chief, NGB.

5.  ARNG Policy Memorandum Number 11-105, dated 14 June 2011, pertains to Federal recognition of warrant officer appointments in the ARNG.  This memorandum states all initial appointments of warrant officers and appointments in a higher grade (promotion) by warrant or commission will be issued by the President of the United States effective 7 January 2011.

6.  ARNG Policy Memorandum Number 11-045, dated 22 July 2011, provides guidance to reduce processing time for applications for the Federal recognition of ARNG warrant officers initial appointments and appointments to a higher grade.

7.  NGB Special Orders Number 189 AR were published on 16 August 2011 extending the applicant Federal recognition for promotion to the rank of CW4, effective 12 August 2011.

8.  An ARNG-HRH Information Paper, Subject:  NDAA 11 Changes to Warrant Officer Federal Recognition Process, dated 22 July 2011, states:

	a.  Previous to 7 January 2011, all warrant officer Federal recognition appointments and promotions were approved by the Secretary of the Army.  The Secretary of the Army delegated this authority to the Director, NGB, and NGB published all Federal recognition orders for warrant officers.

	b.  On 7 January 2011, NDAA 11 was signed and a new requirement was created that all warrant officer appointments and promotions would have to be signed by the President of the United States.  This new requirement removed NGB authority to approve and publish all warrant officer Federal recognition orders.  All warrant officer appointments and promotions are now required to go on a scroll and be processed through various channels from the Department of the Army G-1 up to the Secretary of Defense.

	c.  Before NDAA 11, the effective DOR for all ARNG warrant officer promotions was the date of the State promotion orders as stated by the Federal Recognition Board recommendations.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions and her supporting evidence have been considered.

2.  By law, effective 7 January 2011, all warrant officer promotions are required to go on a scroll and be processed through various channels up to the Secretary of Defense.

3.  The delay in the applicant's promotion resulted from a statutory change in the procedures for the promotion of warrant officers that was mandated by NDAA 11 that warrant officers 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 warrant officer appointment and promotion scrolls were developed and refined.

4.  Although this process was modeled on the existing process of scrolling commissioned officer appointments and promotions, there was still a period during which the warrant officer scrolling process was being perfected.  This development process resulted in the delay of the promotions of all ARNG warrant officers, and probably warrant officers from other service components, recommended for promotion during the months immediately following the enactment of the scrolling requirements.  

5.  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 warrant officers 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.

6.  In view of the foregoing evidence and the change in law, the applicant's effective date of rank seems appropriate and reasonable.  Therefore, there is no basis for granting the applicant's 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 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)                                         AR20130006010



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130006010



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1