AR20160001104

BOARD DATE: 24 May 2016

DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001104

BOARD VOTE:

_________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF

__x______ __x______ ___x__ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION

2Enclosures
1. Board Determination/Recommendation
2. Evidence and Consideration

BOARD DATE: 24 May 2016

DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001104

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army and National Guard records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing his DOR to CW3 as 27March 2014.

2. The Board further determined 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 application that pertains to adjusting his DOR to CW3 to 24March 2014.

___________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.

BOARD DATE: 24 May 2016

DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001104

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 correction of his records to show his date of rank (DOR) to chief warrant officer three (CW3) as 11February 2014, his promotion eligibility date (PED). [He subsequently amended his request to show his DOR as 24March 2014.]

2. The applicant states his commands administrative noncommissioned officer (NCO) inadvertently lost his promotion packet and reported it as completed and submitted months before the error was discovered. This error delayed his promotion to CW3.

3. The applicant provides:

* four pages of email, dated between 7March 2014 and 7January 2016
* DAForm1559 (Inspector General Action Request (IGAR)), dated 12March 2014
* letter, dated 18March 2014
* two memoranda, dated 21August 2014 and 18October 2015
* orders, dated 19August 2014
* DDForm149 (Application for Correction of Military Record), dated 11September 2014

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1. Having had prior enlisted service in the Army National Guard (ARNG), the applicant was appointed as a Reserve warrant officer one (WO1) on 18August 2009 in the District of Columbia ARNG (DCARNG) with a concurrent call to active duty. On 18August 2009, he entered active duty as a member of the DCARNG. He was assigned to Joint Force Headquarters (JFHQ), DCARNG.

2. He attended and successfully completed the Human Resources WO Basic Course from 30November 2009 to 11February 2010.

3. Special Orders (SO) Number 72 AR, dated 15April 2010, issued by the National Guard Bureau (NGB), extended him Federal recognition and promoted him to the rank of chief warrant officer two (CW2) with a DOR and effective date of 11February 2010.

4. He attended and successfully completed the Human Resources Technician Course from 22July to 3August 2012.

5. Special Orders (SO) Number 233 AR, dated 21August 2014, issued by the NGB, extended him Federal recognition and promoted him to the rank of CW3 with a DOR and effective date of 19August 2014.

6. On 9August 2015, he was released from active duty in the rank of CW3 to the control of the DCARNG.

7. The applicant provides a memorandum for the NGB, dated 15October 2015, subject: Recommendation – [The Applicant], from Lieutenant Colonel (LTC)SDF, Deputy Chief of Staff Personnel (DCSPER)/G-1, DCARNG. LTCSDF stated:

a. The applicant requested his DOR to CW3 be amended based upon an error that occurred during the administrative process and he (LTCSDF) recommended approval.

b. The applicant’s promotion packet was submitted/received at JFHQ, DCARNG on 15October 2013. The JFHQ administrative NCO received two promotions packets both with the same last name. Assuming it was the same person, he inadvertently only submitted one of the promotion packets (not the applicant’s) to the G-1 office.

c. The G-1 received the applicant’s promotion packet on 15March 2014. The administrative oversight delayed his promotion packet for 5months (emphasis added). His DOR of 19August 2014 should be amended to reflect his PEB of 11February 2014.

8. In the processing of this case an advisory opinion, dated 25March 2016, was received from the Deputy Chief, Personnel Policy Division, NGB. The advisory official recommended partial approval of the applicants request and opined, in part:

a. On 15October 2013, the applicant submitted his promotion packet to JFHQ, DCARNG. According to statements provided by the applicant in his IGAR, the JFHQ administrative NCO discarded his promotion packet in error. On 21October 2013, the applicant was informed the packet had been submitted. Sometime in January 2013 (i.e. 2014), after determining the NCO discarded his packet due to the assumption it was a duplicate packet for another Soldier with the same last name, it was forwarded to the “89 CCP,” DCARNG.

b. On 7February 2014, OPM received the packet. On 8February 2014, the packet was returned to the DCARNG due to missing documents. On 7March 2014, it was resubmitted to OPM. On 8March 2014, it was returned to the DCARNG requesting updated documents. On 15March 2014, it was resubmitted and hand delivered to the G-1.

c. According to State promotion orders 188-003, dated 28May 2014, the DCARNG promoted the applicant to CW3 with an effective date and DOR of 27May 2014. According to SO233 AR, dated 21August 2014, the applicant was Federally recognized as a CW3 with an effective date and DOR of 19August 2015 (i.e. 2014).

d. The administrative oversight delayed the applicant’s promotion packet 109days. After resubmission on 7February 2014, it took an additional 36days for the Soldier to submit a completed packet with no errors. Taking into consideration the delay of 109days caused by unit error, as well as the 36days (a total of 145days) it took to submit a completed packet, his DOR should be amended to 7June 2014.

e. The advisory opinion was coordinated with the NGB Federal Recognition Branch (FRB) and the DCARNG concurred with the recommendation.

9. In a response to the advisory opinion, dated 1April 2016, the applicant stated he concurred with the advisory official; however, his DOR should be amended to 24March 2014. This took into consideration the 109days caused by unit error as well as the 36days to submit updated documents that were current when the packet was submitted in October 2013.

REFERENCES:

1. National Guard Regulation 600-101 (Warrant Officers – Federal Recognition and Related Personnel Actions) prescribes policies and procedures for ARNG warrant officer personnel management. Chapter 7 states that 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 (MOS) certification via satisfactory completion of the appropriate level of military education, time in grade (TIG), demonstrated technical and tactical competence, and potential for service in the next higher grade as determined by an FRB.

2. The minimum time in grade for promotion to CW3 is 4years in the lower grade and completion of the minimum military education requirements

3. Title 10, U. S. Code, section571(b) states appointments in regular CWO grades shall be made by commission by the President (as delegated to the Secretary of Defense).

DISCUSSION:

1. The evidence of record shows the applicant was extended Federal recognition and promoted to CW3 in the DCARNG with an effective date and DOR of 19August 2014. The applicant contends his DOR should be adjusted to account for the 145days that were caused by unit error/delays that were due to no fault of his own.

2. The NGB advisory official conceded that it took 145days for the DCARNG to submit a complete promotion packet for the applicant. Of that delay, 109days was the result of unit error and 36days resulted from the need to obtain missing or outdated documents. In October 2015, the DCARNG, DCSPER/G-1 confirmed that unit error caused a delay of [about] 5months in the processing of his promotion packet.
3. Notwithstanding the advisory official’s recommendation that his DOR should be adjusted to 7June 2014, this date is just 74days prior to his DOR of 19August 2014. The effective date of promotion is established under the authority of the Secretary of Defense and this Board does not have the authority to change that date. However, the applicant should not be penalized for errors that were caused by no fault of his own. As such, and as a matter of equity, it would be appropriate to adjust his DOR to 27March 2014, 145days prior to his current DOR of 19August 2014.

4. With respect to amending his DOR to 24March 2014, this DOR is 148days prior to his DOR of 19August 2014. He contended unit errors delayed his promotion to CW3 by 145 days as confirmed by the advisory official.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953

Enclosure 1

ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160001104

2

ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Enclosure 1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160001104

5

ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Enclosure 2