RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            2 February 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20050007271


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Yolanda Maldonado             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Michael J. Flynn              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Dennis J. Phillips            |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, reinstatement into the Warrant
Officer Candidate Program (WOCP); attendance at the next available Warrant
Officer Basic Course (WOBC) class; and that she be allowed to remain on
active duty on her Active Guard Reserve (AGR) tour.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, in May 1999, she was boarded and
accepted into the WOCP.  However, in May 2000, she received a memorandum
stating that although her appointment was approved, the needs of the Army
prevented her being processed and trained for her appointment.  She claims
that based on the need for specialty 420A warrant officers in the Active
Guard Reserve (AGR), and to reestablish integrity in the WOCP, her request
should be approved.

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of her
application:  Self-Authored Statement; Application for Appointment (DA Form
61); Removal from United States Army Reserve (USAR) WOCP Memorandum, dated
11 May 2000; and Addendum to DA Form 61.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s record shows she initially entered the Army National
Guard on 24 April 1979, and served in that status until 3 April 1980.  On
14 April 1980, she enlisted in the United States Army Reserve (USAR), and
she has continuously served in various capacities in that status through
the present.

2.  On 1 September 2001, she was promoted to the rank of sergeant first
class, which is the rank she currently holds, and she is now serving on
active duty in the AGR program.

3.  The applicant completed an application for appointment to warrant
officer on 24 July 1997.  The specific date she was officially selected for
appointment is not on file in her Official Military Personnel Military File
(OMPF).

4.  On 11 May 2000, the Director, Officer Personnel Management, United
States Army (USA) Reserve Command (ARPERSCOM), currently known as USA Human
Resources Command-St. Louis, completed an addendum to the applicant’s DA
Form 61 for filing in the OMPF.  This document indicated that although the
applicant had been approved for appointment, the needs of the Army
prevented her processing and training for the appointment.

5.  On 11 May 2000, the ARPERSCOM WOCP manager notified the applicant that
she was removed from the WOCP on 29 April 2000, and that her DA Form 61 was
forwarded for filing in her OMPF along with an addendum explaining that
although she had been approved for appointment, the needs of the Army
prevented processing and training her for appointment.

6.  In connection with the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was
obtained from Director, Army Reserve Active Duty Management Directorate,
HRC-St. Louis.  This official recommended the applicant’s request be
denied.  He stated that it could only be surmised that the applicant was
not scheduled for warrant officer training, or appointed based on the needs
of the Army.

7.  On 13 November 2005, the applicant submitted a rebuttal to the HRC-St.
Louis advisory opinion.  She stated that governing regulation was violated
in that it allowed her two years to complete warrant officer training,
which should have been two years from the date of notification of
selection; however, HRC officials used a totally different date.  She
further claimed that although she was informed there were no positions
available in her specialty, warrant officers in the specialty continued to
be accessed into the AGR program.  She goes on to indicate that in 2000,
another warrant officer selection board was announced and submitted to the
field, and that Soldiers could apply for appointment in her specialty.  The
applicant also indicates that the advisory opinion comment indicating that
she never requested an exception is inaccurate.  She claims to have
challenged her removal in a face-to-face visit with the WOCP Division in
1999, but never received a response regarding her concerns or request for
training/appointment in the AGR WOCP.  The applicant included memorandums
of support for her request from a retired colonel, a former Inspector
General (IG) for HRC-St. Louis and a master sergeant.

8.  A retired colonel provided a supporting statement.  He recommends the
applicant’s request for a warrant officer appointment be approved.  He
further indicates that he was the HRC- St. Louis IG from 6 June 2000
through
20 September 2002, and that during his tenure, he conducted several
investigative inquiries that dealt with the appointment of commissioned and
warrant officers in the Army.  Based on these inquiries, he found systemic
problems that included the lack of standard operating procedures,
insufficient communication between the full time support division and the
officer personnel management directorate.  As a result, the applicant and
other noncommissioned officers were not afforded the opportunity to become
warrant or commissioned officers.

9.  The supporting statement provided by a master sergeant also supports
the applicant’s appointment.  She claims she was on the same warrant
officer list as the applicant and was also denied appointment based on the
needs of the Army. She also raises questions regarding the validity of
decisions being made by HRC-St. Louis officials regarding warrant officer
appointments.

10.  Army Regulation 135-100 (Appointment of Commissioned and Warrant
Officers of the Army) prescribes policy and procedures for the appointment
of commissioned and warrant officers in the ARNG and USAR.  Paragraph 2-
7.1. contains warrant officer appointment procedures.  It states, in
pertinent part, that Reserve Component warrant officers, not on active
duty, must successfully complete technical and tactical certification
within 2 years of appointment unless extended by Headquarters, Department
of the Army.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that she was unjustly denied a warrant
officer appointment for which she had been selected, and the supporting
documents she provided were carefully considered.  However, there is an
insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief.

2.  By regulation, Soldiers selected for the WOCP are required to complete
technical and tactical certification within two years of appointment.  In
this case, while the actual selection date is not on file, it appears the
applicant was selected for the WOCP based on her 24 July 1997 application
for appointment, and she was informed on 11 May 2000, that the needs of the
Army prevented her processing and training for the appointment.  Absent any
clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, it has to be assumed the
needs of the Army was in fact the basis for the denial of her appointment,
as indicated in the HRC-St. Louis advisory opinion.

3.  The applicant’s statements and the supporting statements she provided
do point out some management problems within HRC-St. Louis regarding
officer appointments that should be addressed, mainly related to
communicating information in a timely manner.  However, these
administrative issues do not appear to be serious enough to render a
determination by proper officials that the needs of the Army did not
support the applicant’s appointment invalid, or to conclude that she was
denied appointment for any other reason.
4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily
appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to
submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___YM_ _  __MJF __  ___DJP__  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.




            ____Yolanda Maldonado____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050007271                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/02/02                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A                                     |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A                                     |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |N/A                                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.0300                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]