IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  6 March 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140010268


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 initially requested correction of her date of rank (DOR) to chief warrant officer three (CW3) in the Ohio Army National Guard (OHARNG), from 14 May 2014 to 14 May 2013.  Later, in effect, she amended her request to include correction of her effective date of promotion to CW3, from 14 May 2014 to 14 August 2014 [sic].

2.  The applicant states:

* she became eligible for promotion to CW3 on 5 March 2013, upon completion of the Warrant Officer Advanced Course (WOAC)
* her promotion endorsement was received at the Joint Force Headquarters (JFHQ) Ohio Personnel Branch on 25 April 2013 and boarded for Federal recognition on 14 May 2013
* the State of Ohio promotion order was published on 16 May 2013,  effective 14 May 2013
* her State promotion packet (effective 14 May 2013) was not sent forward to the National Guard Bureau (NGB) for Federal recognition until 11 March 2014
* as of 11 March 2014, there was no record of the promotion packet being uploaded to the legacy system on Guard Knowledge Online (GKO) and the exact reason why it was not is unknown
* a combination of dramatic employee turnover and the transition from the GKO to the G1 Portal "e-tracker" system during this time frame most likely caused the error
* an OHARNG memorandum confirmed the incident and requested full relief 
3.  The applicant provides:

* a State of Ohio, Adjutant General's Department memorandum, dated      11 March 2014, Subject: Correction of ARNG Effective Date of Promotion for [Applicant]
* Orders 136-909, dated 16 May 2013, State of Ohio, Adjutant General's Department, Columbus, OH

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the OHARNG on 24 May 1983.  She was subsequently accepted into the Warrant Officer Candidate Program.  She completed the Warrant Officer Candidate Course, executed an oath of office and was appointed as a warrant officer one (WO1) on 28 June 2006.

2.  She served in a variety of assignments and was promoted to chief warrant  officer two (CW2) on 12 November 2007.

3.  She successfully attended and completed the WOAC from 14 January 2013 to 5 March 2013.

4.  On 16 May 2013, the OHARNG published Orders 136-909, which promoted her to CW3 with an effective date and DOR of 14 May 2013.

5.  On 15 May 2014, the NGB published a memorandum that shows she was promoted to CW3 with an effective date and DOR of 14 May 2014.

6.  On 15 May 2014, the NGB published Special Orders Number 135 AR, which extended her Federal recognition for promotion to CW3 with an effective date and DOR of 14 May 2014.

7.  She provided an OHARNG memorandum, dated 11 March 2014, signed by the State's Personnel Branch - Boards Officer in Charge (OIC) explaining her situation.  This official certified:

     a.  Her promotion endorsement packet was delayed in submission to the NGB for publication of permanent Federal recognition as required by National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-101 (Warrant Officers Federal Recognition and Related Personnel Actions). 



     b.  She became eligible for promotion on 5 March 2013 upon completion of WOAC.  The promotion was endorsed at the JFHQ, Personnel Branch on 
25 April 2013 and boarded for Federal recognition on 14 May 2013.

     c.  There is no record of the promotion being uploaded to the legacy system on GKO.

     d.  The exact reason for the failure to process her promotion in a timely manner is unknown.  However, a combination of dramatic employee turnover and the transition from GKO to the G1 Portal "e-tracker" system most likely caused the error.

     e.  She was not at fault for this delay in the administrative process and she should be granted full relief by backdating the promotion to the original date of 
14 May 2013.  His office assumes full responsibility for the delay. 

8.  In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the NGB Personnel Policy Division, dated 22 December 2014.  That office recommends partial approval of the applicant's request to adjust her promotion effective date to 14 August 2013.  A copy of the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for information and to provide her the opportunity to submit comments and/or a rebuttal.  A response was received on 3 February 2015, in which she agreed and supported the NGB's recommendation.

9.  National Guard Regulation 600-101 prescribes policies and procedures for ARNG warrant officer personnel management.  Chapter 7 states the promotion of warrant officers in the ARNG is a function of the State.  As in original appointments, 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 requirements for this promotion.  Promotions will be based on the Department of the Army proponent duty military occupational specialty certification via satisfactory completion 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.

10.  A WO must complete the minimum years of promotion service as shown in Table 7-1 (for promotion to CW3, 5 years in the lower grade) and the education requirements of Table 7-2 (completion of WOAC) of NGR 600-101 to attain eligibility for promotion and receive Federal recognition in the higher grade.

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

	a.  Title 10, U.S. Code, sections 571b and 12241b introduced a requirement that all WO appointments and promotions to chief warrant officer grades in the ARNG be made by the President of the United States.  As a result, effective 7 January 2011, all initial appointments of WOs and promotion to higher grades, by warrant or commission, were to be issued by the President (delegated to the Secretary of Defense).  

	b.  This requirement may add 90 days or more to the process for approval for appointments or promotions to be completed.  This new requirement removed the authority from the NGB to approve and publish all warrant officer Federal Recognition Orders.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request to have her DOR and effective date of promotion to CW3 corrected from 14 May 2014 to 14 May 2013 has been carefully considered.

2.  The evidence of record shows she was fully qualified and considered for promotion to CW3.  The OHARNG published promotion orders with an effective date and DOR of 14 May 2013.

3.  The NGB published orders extending her Federal recognition for promotion with an effective date and DOR of 14 May 2014.  This is one year later and seems to be an unusually long period of time between the State order and the NGB approval and publication of Federal recognition orders.  It is reasonable to assume that a delay occurred in the process at no fault of the applicant. 

4.  Furthermore, the OHARNG Boards OIC certified that the submission of her promotion packet was the cause of personnel turnover and the introduction of a new management system that affected the promotion packet being received at the NGB, seeming to establish a causal effect for the delay between the two orders.

5.  The advisory opinion recommends a partial approval of the applicant's request to adjust her promotion effective date to 14 August 2013, to account for normal processing time.  The NGB opinion does acknowledge the OHARNG's rationale 


for the delay, the desire to promote the applicant in a timely manner and the fact that the error was not the fault of the applicant. 

6.  However, promotions to CW3 are issued by the President of the United States and are delegated to the Secretary of Defense as a result of Title 10, U.S. Code, sections 571b and 12241b.  This agency has no authority to change the effective date of her promotion.  It may however, adjust the DOR of an officer who has been properly appointed.

7.  In view of the foregoing and notwithstanding the advisory opinion, the applicant is entitled to partial relief.  Her records should be corrected to show her DOR for CW3 as 14 May 2013.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

____X____  ___X_____  ___X_____  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that Army National Guard and Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected to show her DOR for CW3 as 14 May 2013.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends 
denial of so much of the applicant's request that pertains to changing the effective date of her promotion to CW3 (permanent Federal recognition).



      ____________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)                                         AR20130005753



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140010268



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1