MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            5 April 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000041991

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

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. David E. Weightman		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Member	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Correction of his military records to show he was promoted to Chief Warrant Officer Four (CW4) on 9 May 1995 instead of 
1 September 1996.

APPLICANT STATES:  His earlier promotion was improperly denied due to error in interpretation of the pertinent regulations by the State promotion board.  His packet and request for promotion to CW4 was initially disapproved and returned by the board for the lack of the required military education, the Warrant Officer Advanced Course specific to military occupational specialty code (MOSC) 256A or 912A.  Resubmission erroneously resulted in disapproval of his promotion by a Federal Recognition Board (FRB) based on unacceptable performance and promotion potential.  He points out that he was educationally qualified and his officer evaluation reports clearly showed his progression, and he was previously approved to occupy a CW4 position.  The OER’s reviewed were flawed in many respects because evaluations for warrant officers are not understood and do not abide by evaluation regulations, and based on a lack of expertise in evaluating warrant officers.  He defends his record and states that judgments made regarding his performance and abilities are incorrect and unfounded.  He submits his own statement, statements from others, and other documentation in support of his request.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records were provided by the National Guard Bureau on 3 April 2001.  The records show:

With prior enlisted active and Reserve service, the applicant was appointed as a Warrant Officer One effective 28 November 1983.  He was promoted to CW2 effective 1 June 1984.

He completed the Warrant Officer Advanced Course on 13 February 1987.

His OER history since 1990 shows his performance as average based on the ratings from his rating officers and senior raters, including two below center of mass ratings and no above center of mass ratings.

On 30 November 1995 the applicant’s promotion application and related documents were examined by an Alabama National Guard FRB for the purpose of promotion.  The board determined that his physical qualifications, moral character and general qualifications were satisfactory.  The board did not recommend him for promotion based on the review of his application and related 

documents.  The board determined that he was not professionally qualified and that his manner of duty performance as reflected by his OER’s was not indicative of the potential required for service in the next higher grade.  He was advised of the FRB’s decision on 6 December 1995.

On 6 January 1996, upon his resubmission for promotion, he was again advised of the reasons for denial of his request for promotion, and that he may appear in person to another FRB on 18 April 1996.

On 3 May 1996 the applicant reported to the FRB for promotion consideration for CW4.  This FRB had a different membership than the initial FRB.  He was again found qualified in the areas of physical qualifications, moral character, and general qualifications.  He was again found not qualified in the area of professionalism.  The board did not recommend him for promotion.  The board determined that his manner of duty performance as reflected by his OER’s and his non-adaptability to changing situations as disclosed during his personal appearance was not indicative of the potential required for service in the next higher grade.  He was notified in writing of the results of the FRB.

Neither FRB disputed his physical qualifications, moral character and general qualifications, including his qualification in MOSC’s 256A (Engineer Equipment Repair Technician) or 912A (Electronic Systems Maintenance Technician).

The applicant was subsequently promoted to CW4 effective 1 September 1996 in MOSC 912A.

National Guard Regulation 600-101, Warrant Officers – Federal Recognition and Related Personnel Actions, prescribes the National Guard Bureau policies and procedures governing the appointment, assignment and management of warrant officers of the Army National Guard.  It specifies that the promotion of warrant offices in the Army National Guard is a function of the State, and to receive Federal recognition in a higher grade, the officer must satisfy prescribed requirements.  It also specifies that appointments to a higher grade require Federal recognition board action.

The original application in this case was provided to this Board by the NGB on 
3 April 2001.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to correction of his military records to show he was promoted to CW4 on 9 May 1995 instead of 1 September 1996.  He has not shown sufficient error or injustice for the relief he is requesting.

2.  His contentions concerning the reasons for the FRB denial of his promotion requests are noted; however, they are not supported by his application or the evidence of record.  Both FRB’s specified the reason for their denial of promotion was his professionalism and performance of duties as primarily shown by his OER’s.  In review of his OER’s from 1990 to 1995, this Board does not dispute the FRB’s decisions in his case.  His OER’s did not indicate a strong potential for promotion.  The Board also notes that while he may have an excellent record, promotion is not automatic, but is based on potential to serve in the higher grade, and many officers, as in the applicant’s case may not be immediately recommended.

3.  The Board further concludes that, along with meeting regulatory compliance, the applicant’s promotion is predicated upon a FRB’s determination and recommendation.  He did not receive approval from a FRB for a promotion to be effective on 9 May 1995, and he has not convinced the Board that he would have received the FRB’s approval requirement for promotion on 9 May 1995 under the cited circumstances.  Regardless of regulatory qualifications, he was not recommended for promotion prior to 1 September 1996 based on his professionalism and potential.

4.  The FRB’s evaluations appear to be a fair and subjective determination of the applicant’s potential for promotion.  The applicant has not shown otherwise.

5.  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.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_hbo____  _jh _____  __cla____  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000041991	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010405	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.