IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  6 October 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150001019 


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 his date of rank (DOR) and effective date of promotion to chief warrant officer three (CW3) from 17 December 2014 to 1 August 2013 with applicable back pay.

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  He submitted his packet for promotion to CW3 in February 2013.

	b.  It has taken nearly 2 years for him to get promoted.  His packet sat on the staff action officer's (SAO) desk, unsigned, until June 2013.  When it finally was submitted to the armory, he faced numerous setbacks (his packet was returned to the unit without notification or explanation, it was affected by sequestration, it was lost, it was resubmitted in late 2013, and finally he was told in April 2014 he was not qualified due to not having completed the Medical Evacuation Doctrine Course, a previously unknown requirement).

	c.  He submitted an Inspector General (IG) complaint in August 2014.

3.  The applicant provides email correspondence pertaining to the timeliness of his promotion packet process.


CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Having prior active enlisted service in the Regular Navy and Regular Army and service as a warrant officer in the Regular Army, the applicant was appointed as a chief warrant officer two in the Army National Guard on 1 August 2011.

2.  He completed:

* Phase I of the Aviation Warrant Officer Advanced Course in December 2012
* Phase II of the Aviation Warrant Officer Advanced Course in 2013
* Medical Evacuation Doctrine Course on 3 July 2014 

3.  On 1 October 2014, he submitted a Department of the Army IG complaint requesting assistance with his promotion packet and questioned why the process was taking so long.  An investigation was conducted.  On 14 January 2015, his case was closed.

4.  On 15 January 2015, the Department of the Army IG notified the applicant by letter that:

	a.  His case was referred to both his command and the subject matter expert in the District of Columbia ARNG (DCARNG) G-1.

	b.  Information regarding his promotion packet that took place prior to October 2013 was before the tenure of the current command.  The unit readiness noncommissioned officer (NCO) promptly submitted his documentation in July 2014 after he completed his training in June 2014.  In August 2014, the G-1 informed the unit readiness NCO that the National Guard Bureau (NGB) sent his packet back for multiple corrections and additional information.  In late August 2014, NGB had everything required to move forward in the processing of the packet and nothing further was required by the unit.  It can take 4 to 6 months to be promoted once NGB has the packet.

	c.  Allegations of missing documentation, packets sitting without action, and accountable officers not returning calls or providing any follow up were evident in the discovery of his promotion packet.  Moreover, the process was ineffective by relying on the use of old-fashioned hard copies when most agencies use scanned copies of documents along with a virtual tracing and coordination system.

	d.  The DCARNG G-1 informed the Department of the Army IG that the applicant had Federal recognition as of 19 December 2014.  Future boards and packets will improve with the virtual tracking system because it will provide an instant status and accountability of all promotion packets to the accountable unit and Soldier.

	e.  The Department of the Army IG Office recommended he apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records if he wanted to backdate his promotion to 2013.

5.  On 17 December 2014, he was promoted to CW3 with an effective date and DOR of 17 December 2014.

6.  NGB Special Orders Number 372 AR, dated 19 December 2014, awarded him permanent Federal recognition for promotion to CW3 effective 17 December 2014.

7.  He provided email correspondence supporting the following contentions:

* he notified the readiness NCO to submit his promotion packet in February 2013
* he verified his packet was complete with his unit readiness NCO in March 2013
* he spoke with the SAO regarding why his packet had not left the unit for the Army in June 2013
* he was informed his packet had been lost in November 2013
* he resubmitted his promotion packet in December 2013
* he was notified his packet was incomplete due to not having completed the Medical Evacuation Doctrine Course in April 2014

8.  In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Personnel Policy Division, NGB.  The advisory official recommends disapproval of the applicant's request.  The opinion noted the following:

	a.  	The applicant did not meet the criteria for promotion established in National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-101 (Warrant Officers Federal Recognition and Related Personnel Actions) until he completed all required training for his military occupational specialty (MOS) 153L (helicopter pilot).

	b.  He was recognized again as a CW2 on 1 August 2011 with an MOS 153B, according to his Federal recognition scroll, dated 30 December 2011.  He was originally promoted to CW2 on 14 March 1999, according to his DA Form 78-R (Promotion Recommendation).  He had a break in service between 14 January 2006 and 1 August 2011, according to his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) and NGB Form 23B (Retirement Points Statement).

	c.  He completed Phase I of the Aviation Warrant Officer Advanced Course on 16 December 2012 and Phase II of the course in 2013, according to his Officer Record Brief.

	d.  He completed the Medical Evacuation Doctrine Course on 3 July 2014, according to his course certificate.  He qualified for the H4 additional skill identifier (ASI) upon completion of this course.

	e.  Paragraph 7-2 (Promotion criteria) of NGR 600-101 requires warrant officers to achieve Department of the Army proponent duty MOS certification upon satisfactory completion or constructive credit of appropriate level of military education.  In addition, warrant officers in the grade of CW2 to CW5 must also possess those additional requirements of Department of the Army Pamphlet 611-21, or other guidance, stipulating the requirement to be qualified in an ASI, and/or Skill Qualification Identifier (SQI), according to NGR 600-101.  He was not qualified for promotion to CW3 in his MOS position until he completed the Medical Evacuation Course in July 2014.

	f.  He was recommended for promotion by a Federal Recognition Board (FRB) on 8 July 2014, according to his NGB Form 89 (Proceedings of a Federal Recognition Examining Board).  He was promoted to CW3 on 17 December 2014, according to his promotion order and Federal recognition scroll.  The scroll processing of 5 months and 10 days is a normal processing time.  Warrant officers are not promoted on the date they complete their advance course, the date the promotion packet process started, or the date the NGB Form 89 is signed and approved.

	g.  There was an initial disservice done to the officer by not properly correcting his DOR when he entered the ARNG.  However, current policy states warrant officers "must also possess those additional requirements of DA Pam 611-21."  In other words, warrant officers being promoted to CW3 through CW5 must be fully qualified matching all characters of the duty MOS.  Even though his original DOR could have been adjusted to give him credit for previous time, allowing him to attend school earlier to be qualified for CW3, he wasn't, therefore was not fully eligible until the date of his FRB.

	h.  The National Guard Bureau's Warrant Officer Policy Branch concurs with this advisory opinion.

9.  A copy of the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for comment and possible rebuttal.  He responded and stated:

	a.  The findings of the advisory opinion focused on two main points: his time in grade as a CW2 and the fact he was not 2CF7 qualified until July 2014.

	b.  Time in grade has never been a concern/issue.  He made the list for promotion to CW3 twice before he separated from active duty in January 2006.  The only reason he was given as to why he could not enter the ARNG as a CW3 was due to not have completed the Warrant Officer Advanced Course.  He completed that as soon as possible in December 2012 and submitted his promotion packet in February 2013.

	c.  The 2CF7 requirement was not known at the time of packet submission.  It was not known until April 2014.  This was not negligence on his part as the checklists did not list it.  He has enclosed 2 checklists for the promotion packets that he has copies of and neither checklist lists the 2CF7 course as a requirement.

	d.  His complaint and reason for requesting backdate of his DOR and back pay is a simple question.  How can a Soldier be expected to comely with unknown requirements for promotion?  Additionally, if a requirement is realized after packet submission, the Soldier should be made aware in a timely fashion.  It took over 1 year for this requirement to be make known to him.

	e.  It took nearly 2 years for him to get promoted from CW2 to CW3.  The delays were due to circumstances beyond his control and were not even made known until 1 year into the process and after numerous inquiries on his part.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant requests adjustment of his DOR and effective date of promotion to CW3 from 17 December 2014 to 1 August 2013, with associated back pay.

2.  The evidence shows:

* he completed the Medical Evacuation Doctrine Course on 2 July 2014
* he was recommended for promotion to CW3 by a FRB on 8 July 2014
* he was promoted to CW3 effective 17 December 2014

3.  The governing regulation states warrant officers in the grades of CW2 to CW5 must also be qualified in an ASI and/or SQI.  He qualified for the H4 ASI upon completion of the Medical Evacuation Doctrine Course.

4.  He did not meet the criteria for promotion to CW3 until he completed all required training for his MOS.  The NGB advisory official points out the scroll processing of 5 months and 10 days is a normal processing time.  Therefore, there is insufficient evidence on which to base granting the 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 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)                                         AR20150001019



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150001019



6


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1