MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           28 November 2000   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000044194

	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	
	Ms. Wanda L. Waller 		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson 		Chairperson	
	Mr. John H. Kern 		Member	
	Mr. Wilfred A. Hale, Jr. 		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:  Promotion to Chief Warrant Officer Two (CW2).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he be promoted to CW2 as recommended in the recommendation dated 15 May 1984.  He contends that he was appointed Warrant Officer One (WO1) on 25 April 1983 and that during this period the Department of the Army came out with a regulation (National Guard Regulation, Chapter 6) that E-7’s would automatically be advanced to CW2.  He states that he spent over 22 years in the maintenance field with very high recommendations on his officer evaluations, that even if “they say” I was sent to Fitzsimmons hospital for an evaluation, the promotion should be overruled by the regulation for advancement to CW2.  In support of his application, he submits a copy of a letter, dated 7 March 1984, for selection for retention under the provisions of National Guard Regulation 635-102; a copy of a recommendation for promotion to CW2 dated 15 May 1984; and separation orders dated 3 July 1984.              

The Board notes that the applicant indicated that he submitted additional correspondence on two separate occasions in February 2000; however, this correspondence was not attached to his application.    

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

On 15 July 1984, while serving in the rank of WO1, the applicant tendered his resignation as an officer of the South Dakota National Guard under the provisions of National Guard Regulation 600-101, paragraph 9-2a(10), due to medical disqualification.  He also requested that he be transferred to the Army Reserve with assignment to the USAR Control Group (Retired) effective 16 July 1984.

Accordingly, the applicant was honorably discharged from the South Dakota National Guard in the rank of WO1 on 15 July 1984.  At the time of his discharge, he had served over 25 years of reserve component service.

The applicant provided a copy of a Recommendation for Promotion to CW2, dated 15 May 1984, from the Director of Maintenance at the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, Office of the Adjutant General in Rapid City, South Dakota. 

National Guard Regulation 600-101 (Warrant Officers - Federal Recognition and Personnel Actions) prescribes the policies, criteria, and procedures governing appointment, Federal recognition, assignment, attachment, transfer, promotion, separation, and professional development of warrant officers of the Army National Guard.  Chapter 9 (Termination of Appointment and Withdrawal of 

Federal Recognition), paragraph 9-2a(10) provides that the State appointment of an Army National Guard warrant officer should be terminated when the warrant officer becomes medically disqualified for further military service.

Chapter 6 (Promotion) of National Guard Regulation 600-101, paragraph
6-2b(2), provides that the warrant officer must be medically qualified and meet the physical fitness and weight standards for selection for promotion.

Chapter 6 of National Guard Regulation 600-101, paragraph 6-2f(1)(c), provides that warrant officers appointed between 1 April 1981 through 31 May 1984, and who were appointed from grades E-7, E-8, or E-9 may be eligible for promotion.  The regulation also provides that a WO1 with a date of rank between 1 April 1983 and 31 May 1984 would have a promotion eligibility date of 1 June 1984. 

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.  The Board noted the applicant’s recommendation for promotion to CW2 dated 15 May 1984.  However, evidence of record shows the applicant tendered his resignation on 15 July 1984 as an officer of the South Dakota National Guard under the provisions of National Guard Regulation 600-101, paragraph 9-2a(10), due to medical disqualification.  

2.  Evidence of record shows that the applicant was not medically qualified for selection for promotion to CW2, as required in regulation.  Therefore, there is no basis to approve the applicant’s request for promotion to CW2.    

3.  The Board also noted the applicant’s contention regarding the Department of the Army’s policy for automatic advancement to CW2.  However, the governing regulation states that warrant officers appointed between 1 April 1981 through 
31 May 1984, and who were appointed from grades E-7, E-8, or E-9 may be eligible for promotion.  There is no provision for automatic promotion to CW2 in this regulation.       

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.

5.  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

MKP____  JHK____  WAH____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000044194	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001128	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19840715	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	NGR 600-101  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Medical Disqualification	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.