BOARD DATE:	  25 September 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140013887 


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 an adjustment of his Federal recognition date to chief warrant officer two (CW2) in the North Carolina Army National Guard (NCARNG) from 12 August to 8 March 2011. 

2.  The applicant states his promotion should be adjusted from 12 August to
8 March 2011 retroactively in conjunction with his Warrant Officer Basic Course (WOBC) graduation date, in accordance with National Guard Bureau (NGB) Policy Memorandum Number 07-026, dated 14 August 2007, Subject: Policy to Appoint Sergeant First Class (SFC) to CW2, paragraph 2(a)(2), and to also match his State promotion order, dated 9 March 2011.  The NCARNG G-1/State Military Personnel Office was waiting for additional guidance on changes to the Warrant Officer (WO) "Scrolling" administrative processes from the Department of Defense (DOD)/Department of the Army (DA) and the NGB, in accordance with the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), page 288, Subtitle A - Officer Personnel Policy Generally, Section 502, and while there was enough angst and confusion over the "new WO promotion process," he was boarded/approved for CW2 promotion but not considered for a date of rank (DOR) that equaled his WOBC graduation date in accordance with the policy cited above.  

3.  The applicant provides:

* Policy memorandum Number 07-026
* Section 502 of Title 10, U.S. Code
* Memorandum, dated 30 May 2012, Subject: Rescission of NGB Policy Memorandum Number 06-068
* Federal recognition Special Orders (SO) Number 189 AR
* State promotion Orders 068-829
* Promotion Orders 18-2 (SFC) 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's records show he enlisted in the ARNG on 15 March 1994.  He served in the ARNG through multiple reenlistments or extensions and he held military occupational specialty (MOS) 42A (Human Resources (HR) Specialist).  

2.  He entered active duty in a State Active Guard Reserve status on 19 January 2005.  He was promoted to SFC/E-7 on 1 May 2003.  

3.  On 27 September 2007, a Federal Recognition Board (FRB) convened by the NCARNG considered the applicant for appointment into the ARNG.  The FRB found him professionally qualified for appointment as a WO in the NCARNG.

4.  On 1 October 2007, the NCARNG published Orders 274-804 appointing him as a WO in the NCARNG, effective 27 September 2007, in MOS 09W (WO Corps).  He also completed the 4-week WO Candidate School in 2007. 

5.  On 30 June 2010, he was honorably released from active duty for the purpose of accepting an appointment as a Reserve WO of the Army. 

6.  He was appointed as a Reserve WO of the ARNG and executed an oath of office on 1 July 2010.  Accordingly, on 8 July 2010, the NGB published SO Number 145 AR extending him Federal recognition for initial appointment as a WO in the NCARNG with an effective date and DOR of 1 July 2010. 

7.  He attended and successfully completed the HR WOBC from 5 January to 8 March 2011.  

8.  On 8 March 2011, the NCARNG published Orders 067-915 awarding him MOS 420A (HR Technician). 

9.  On 9 March 2011, the NCARNG published State Orders 068-829 promoting him to CW2 with an effective date and DOR of 8 March 2011 in accordance with National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-101 (WO's - Federal recognition and Related Personnel Actions).

10.  On 16 August 2011, the NGB published SO Number 189 AR extending him Federal recognition for promotion to CW2 with an effective date and DOR of
12 August 2011. 

11.  NGR 600-101 prescribes policies and procedures for ARNG WO personnel management.  Chapter 7 states that promotion of WO's in the ARNG is a function of the State.  As in original appointments, a WO 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 DA MOS proponent 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.  A WO must complete the minimum years of promotion service as shown in table 7-1 (2 years in the lower grade for promotion to CW2) and the educational requirements of table 7-2 (completion of WOBC) of NGR regulation 600-101 to attain eligibility for promotion and receive Federal recognition in the higher grade.  Additionally, a WO must be medically fit and meet the height and weight standards, as well as pass the fitness test.

12.  NGB Policy Memorandum Number  07-026 provides that States are authorized to appoint Soldiers in the rank/grade of SFC/E-7 to the rank/grade of CW2/W-2 effective 14 August 2007.  An SFC who has served a minimum of 2 consecutive years as an SFC may be appointed to CW2 in one of two ways:

	a.  An SFC who is certified by the DA MOS proponent prior to the date of initial appointment (attendance of WOBC not required) may be appointed in the grade of CW2 upon completion of Warrant Officer Candidate School (WOCS).  Constructive credit for WOCS may be granted if the Soldier has satisfactorily completed an OCS within the previous 5 years.

	b.  An SFC who is eligible for MOS training may be promoted to CW2 after completion of WOCS and WOBC.  Constructive credit for WOCS may be granted if the Soldier satisfactorily completed OCS within the previous 5 years.

13.  NGR 600-101 states in chapter 7 that a WO must be recommended for promotion by their immediate commander. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was appointed as a WO in the NCARNG on 1 July 2010.  He completed HR WOBC and he was awarded MOS 420A on 8 March 2011.  Additionally, the NCARNG published the State promotion order promoting him to CW2 on 8 March 2011.  Once his promotion recommendation packet was received from the State, the NGB processed his Federal recognition and ultimately published the SO on 16 August 2011 with an effective date and DOR of 12 August 2011. 

2.  As a result of the 2011 NDAA, the promotion to CW2 is now issued by the President of the United States, delegated to the Secretary of Defense.

   a.  The delay in the applicant's promotion resulted from a statutory change in the procedures for the promotion of WOs that was mandated by the 2011 NDAA which provided that WOs 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 WO appointment and promotion scrolls were developed and refined.

	b.  Although this process was modeled on the existing process of scrolling commissioned officer appointments and promotions, there was still a period during which the WO scrolling process was being perfected.  This development process did result in the delay of the promotions of all ARNG WO's – and probably WO's from other components – recommended for promotion during the months immediately following the enactment of the scrolling requirements.

	c.  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 WO's 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.

3.  The applicant's promotion was not unduly delayed.  The new staffing procedures may add 90 days or more to the process for approval for appointments or promotions to be completed.  His 11 August 2011 Federal recognition date is reasonable and about within the 90 to 120-day projected window.  In view of the foregoing evidence and the change in law, the applicant's effective date of promotion and DOR seem appropriate and reasonable.  In addition, this Board would have no authority to change his effective date of promotion.






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)                                         AR20140013887



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140013887



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1