IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE:	  12 June 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130014636 


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 promotion to the rank of chief warrant five (CW5).

2.  The applicant states that he was denied promotion to CW5 through religious discrimination, malice, extreme prejudice, political retribution, falsification, and manipulation of official military records causing his denial of promotion.  He further states that he was a dual status technician and in order to keep his job he had to stay affiliated with the National Guard and had to keep quiet in order to remain employed or risk harm to his family economically and because of age.

3.  The applicant provides a three-inch binder tabbed A-Z with supporting documents which he requests to be returned to him upon closure of his case.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was appointed as a warrant officer one (WO1) unit personnel technician in the South Carolina Army National Guard (SCARNG) on 
22 September 1987.  He continued to serve and was promoted to the rank of chief warrant officer four (CW4) on 28 September 1999.  On 29 May 2011, he was honorably discharged from the SCARNG and was transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Retired) in the rank of CW4. 

2.  A review of the available evidence shows the applicant filed several similar complaints that were investigated by both the SCARNG and the Department of the Army Inspector General (DAIG) on separate occasions and in each instance, the investigations determined the applicant was not educationally qualified because he had not completed the Warrant Officer Senior Staff Course (WOSSC) and that there were no vacancies in which to promote him.  The WOSSC is a 2-week resident course conducted at Fort Rucker, Alabama that prepares warrant officers selected for promotion to CW5 to serve at the highest level staff positions and is an ARNG requirement for promotion to CW5.  There are no equivalent or correspondence courses for the WOSSC.

3.  It appears the applicant did not agree with any of the investigations conducted and asserted that the investigators needed additional training on how to conduct a proper investigation.

4.  The applicant continued to file complaints to senior Department of Defense officials and to the President of the United States.  In each instance, the result of investigations has always been the same; the applicant did not meet educational qualifications for promotion to CW5.

5.  The applicant's official records indicate that he completed the Reserve Component Senior Warrant Officer Training Course by correspondence in 1993.

6.  In the processing of this case a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the National Guard Bureau (NGB) which opines, in pertinent part, that the applicant was not educationally qualified for promotion to CW5 as he had not completed the WOSSC.

7.  The advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment and he responded with a four page rebuttal and copies of documents (9 enclosures) from his records and emails that were contained in his original submission.  He asserted that he had completed the appropriate level of education, met all criteria for promotion to CW5, and his performance demonstrated he had the potential to serve at the higher grade.  He also asserts that he was never afforded the opportunity to attend WOSSC because someone was manipulating his records.

8.  National Guard Regulation 600-101 (Warrant Officer Federal Recognition and Related Personnel Actions) provides, in pertinent part, that the requirements for promotion to CW5 is 4 years time in grade as a CW4 and completion of the WOSSC.  It also provides that effective 1 April 1995, all warrant officers (civil service technicians and traditional warrant officers) may complete Reserve Component (RC) configured courses applicable to their current military occupational specialty in order to meet the military education promotion requirements.  However, there are no RC configured courses for the WOSSC.



DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 

1.  The applicant has submitted a voluminous packet in support of his application and made many accusations related to his claim that he was denied promotion to the rank of CW5 due to religious discrimination, malice, extreme prejudice, political retribution, and falsification/manipulation of his official records. 

2.  However, the available evidence clearly shows that he did not complete the WOSSC and thus was not educationally qualified for promotion to CW5.

3.  The applicant’s interpretation of the regulation regarding the education requirements for promotion has been noted and appears to lack merit.  The regulation, as well as the guidance he received from NGB subject matter experts clearly show that completion of the WOSSC was required for promotion to the rank of CW5.

4.  The applicant contends that he was never considered or offered an opportunity to attend the WOSSC; however, he does not indicate that he ever applied for attendance at the course as he did other professional development courses.  As a senior warrant officer and military personnel technician he should have been aware of the education requirements for promotion and the fact that a vacant position must be available for promotion.

5.  Notwithstanding all of the reasons the applicant cites as the bases for not being selected for promotion to CW5, the bottom line in his case was that he did not complete the required education prerequisites (completion of the WOSSC) for promotion to CW5 and he has not submitted sufficient evidence to show that he was unjustly or improperly denied attendance of the course and that a position was available if he was selected.

6.  Therefore, in the absence of such evidence, there appears to be no basis to grant his request for promotion to the rank of CW5.
 
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)                                         AR20130014636



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130014636



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1