PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:  20 September 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000050354

	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. Paul A. Petty		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson	
	Ms. Paula Mokulis		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests, in effect, that he be reinstated in the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), that his Reserve Warrant Officer appointment be restored, that his constructive credit for Phase 1 of the Warrant Officer Basic Course – Reserve Component (WOBC-RC) be reinstated, and that he be scheduled for the next available Phase 2 of the WOBC-RC.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was never told that he was required to complete the WOBC-RC within 2 years after appointment as a Warrant Officer on 12 September 1996.  He was never informed of the requirement by his rating chain or his unit.  They did not prepare the required Junior Officer Development Support Form or give him quarterly counseling on his Officer Evaluation Report (OER) informing him of this education requirement.  They did not inform him that he could also request a 1 year extension.  As a demonstration of good faith, in July 1999, he did apply for constructive educational credit for Phase 1 of the WOBC-RC, which was granted in November 1999, and he was scheduled for Phase 2 in September 2000.  When he was appointed as a Reserve Warrant Officer, his unit transferred his records to the Retired Reserve instead of the Warrant Officer Branch.  He was informed that, until this error was corrected, he could not join a Reserve Troop Program Unit (TPU) as a Warrant Officer.  He was accepted by a TPU, but because the Army computer had him designated as Retired Reserve, he could not join.  He called the Reserve Personnel Command frequently about this problem.  The Army continually said the corrections were coming but for 21 months, he was in limbo, unable to commence his career as a Warrant Officer because he could not join a unit.

4.  In support of his contentions, the applicant provides copies of documents to include his 12 September 1996 WO1 Appointment Memorandum, his 1 July 1996 order transferring him to the Retired Reserve as lieutenant colonel (LTC) by reason of Mandatory Retirement Date (MRD), his 18 October 1996 order assigning him to the IRR as a WO1 on 14 September 1996, a DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Records) signed 25 July 1997, his 30 April 1999 order transferring him from the IRR to a TPU effective 29 April 1999, an Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period 22 February through 16 October 1999, a memorandum endorsement approving educational constructive credit for Phase 1 of WOBC-RC, and a U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) – St. Louis Reserve Appointments Branch memorandum, dated 
30 November 1999, revoking the applicant’s WO1 appointment.

5.  The applicant’s military records show that he was commissioned from the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) at Seattle University as a Second Lieutenant in the Army Reserve on 2 June 1968.  He served three years on active duty and since then has served in Reserve Troop Program Units (TPU).

6.  In 1996, he was a Reserve LTC assigned in a TPU, the 364th Civil Affairs (CA) Brigade in Portland, Oregon.  On 10 May 1996, he applied for a Reserve Warrant Officer appointment.  On 25 June 1996, the Chief of the Adjutant General (AG) Warrant Officer Proponency Office, AG School, published a 1st endorsement memorandum to the Commander, PERSCOM, St. Louis, certifying that the applicant was technically qualified to compete for appointment as a warrant officer candidate in Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) 420A, Military Personnel Technician.  The memorandum stated that the applicant, “must attend and successfully complete the Warrant Officer Basic Course for 420A prior to appointment.  Upon successful completion, he should be appointed as a Chief Warrant Officer Two.”

7.  On 1 July 1996, an order was published by the Headquarters, US Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) at Fort Bragg, transferring him from the TPU to the Retired Reserve for having reached his MRD, effective 2 July 1995.  On 19 December 1996, the USASOC published an amendment to the above order changing the effective date to 2 July 1996, the applicant’s correct MRD date.

8.  On 12 September 1996, the PERSCOM – St. Louis Reserve Appointments Branch, issued to the applicant a Memorandum of Appointment as a Reserve Warrant Officer (WO1) in the MOS 0420A, Military Personnel Technician.  The applicant signed the DA Form 71 (Oath of Office) on 14 September 1996.  On 
18 October 1996, PERSCOM - St. Louis published orders C-10-300152 assigning the applicant to the Control Group (Reinforcement), effective 
14 September 1996.  It appears that this order was never posted to the Reserve Data Management System (RDMS), an automated personnel data system.

9.  On 9 October 1996, the applicant enrolled in the correspondence course 
Phase 1 of the 0420A WOBC-RC .  He took a 9 credit hours correspondence subcourse AG0550, Review of Officer Procurement Applications.  He got 
62 percent of the answers correct on the final test; a passing score is 70 percent.

10.  According to Soldier Management System (SMS) automated data, on 
12 November 1996, the US Army Reserve Personnel Command 
(AR-PERSCOM) Warrant Officer Management Team (WOMT) received a 
DA Form 4651-R (Request for Reserve Component Assignment or Attachment) from the 104th Training Division (Reserve) requesting that the applicant be assigned to a WO1 position in their Headquarters and Headquarters Company.  The WOMT responded that they could not do this as the RDMS showed the applicant as a LTC assigned to the Retired Reserve.  The WOMT made a note that the RDMS needed to be changed to show that the applicant was a WO1, 

effective 14 September 1996, assigned in the IRR.  The WOMT checked with the PERSCOM – St. Louis Reserve Appointments Branch which concluded that the applicant had been appointed after his MRD and his appointment should be revoked.  There is no indication that this action was ever taken.

11.  According to SMS, on 16 January 1997, the applicant asked the WOMT about transfer from the Retired Reserve to the IRR.  The WOMT provided the applicant with a copy of the pertinent part of Army Regulation 140-10 for such a transfer.

12.  On 25 July 1997, the applicant signed an Application for Correction of Military Records on which he requested that he be, “removed from the Retired Reserve, placed in the Control Group Reinforcement (IRR), and retain his appointment as a Reserve Warrant Officer.”  He stated that he applied for an appointment as a Reserve Warrant Officer and submitted his packet to a Department of the Army Appointment Board that was scheduled to meet in May 1996.  The board did not convene in May and the next board convened in August 1996.  The August board recommended that he be appointed but during the process he was transferred to the Retired Reserve due to his MRD.  He received his Memorandum of Appointment after this transfer.  He complied with all guidance given to him by the PERSCOM – St. Louis Reserve Appointments Branch and signed his Oath of Office accepting the appointment.  He contends that if the Appointment Board had met as scheduled and the appointment process had been completed during that timeframe, the resulting situation would not have occurred.  There is no record that this DD Form 149 was received or considered by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR).

13.  On 13 October 1998, the applicant was disenrolled in the correspondence course Phase 1 of the 0420A WOBC-RC course for non-completion.

14.  On 29 January 1999, the USASOC at Fort Bragg published orders R029-6 revoking their 1 July 1996 orders 183-12 transferring the applicant from the TPU 364th CA Brigade to the Retired Reserve effective 2 July 1995 and thereby also voiding their 19 December 1996 amendment to that order changing the transfer to the Retired Reserve date to 2 July 1996.  Also on 29 January 1999, the USASOC published orders R029-7 transferring the applicant from the 
364th CA Brigade to the Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement) effective 9 June 1996, a date before the applicant’s MRD.  The PERSCOM – St. Louis Reserve Appointments Branch issued to the applicant a new Memorandum of Appointment as a WO1 dated 10 June 1996 showing the applicant’s date of acceptance of the appointment as 14 September 1996 with an effective date of 10 June 1996.

15.  On 29 April 1999, the applicant was transferred from the IRR to a TPU, the 2122nd US Army Garrison Support Unit, Fort Lewis, by AR-PERSCOM orders 
C-04-914226, issued 30 April 1999.  The record shows that the applicant received an Officer Evaluation Report (OER) as a WO1 from the 2122nd for the period 22 February 1999 to 16 October 1999.  There are no transfer orders in the record to support assignment to the 2122nd before 29 April 1999.  According to the 2122nd pay records, the applicant was assigned to the unit on 29 April 1999 and performed his first drills with the unit in May 1999 for 6 retirement points.

16.  There are no retirement points on record for any period of duty in 1999 prior to May 1999 except for 15 membership points for the period 2 June 1998 to 
1 June 1999.  It is assumed that the 22 February 1999 beginning period for the OER is an error.  The applicant’s retirement statement shows no entries for the period from 4 July 1996 through 1 June 1998. 

17.  On or about July 1999, the applicant requested constructive educational credit for Phase 1 of the WOBC-RC, based on his 28 years of service and his completion of other training to include the Command and General Staff College, the National Security Management Course, the Civil Affairs Officer Advanced Course, the Military Police Officers Advanced Course, and his Juris Doctor degree from the University of Baltimore.  On 13 August 1999, the Chief of Adjutant General (AG) Warrant Officer Proponency of the AG School, denied the request. This denial also referred to a 25 June 1996 endorsement which the AG Warrant Officer Proponency office addressed to the PERSCOM – St. Louis Reserve Appointments Branch.  The endorsement informed the Reserve Appointments Branch that the applicant was technically qualified to compete for an appointment as a warrant officer candidate for Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) 420A, Military Personnel Technician, and that he must attend and successfully complete the WOBC for 420A.

18.  On 16 October 1999, the applicant was transferred from the 2122nd to the 
364th CA Brigade in Portland, Oregon, by the 70th Regional Support Command, Fort Lawton, Washington, orders 99-284-018, dated 11 October 1999.

19.  On 6 November 1999, the applicant again applied for constructive educational credit for Phase 1 of 0420A WOBC-RC with endorsement from his chain of command.  On an undated endorsement, the Director of the Training Department of the AG School approved the applicant’s constructive credit for Phase 1 of the course.

20.  On 30 November 1999, the PERSCOM – St. Louis Reserve Appointments Branch published a memorandum to the applicant informing him that effective 
30 November 1999, his Reserve Warrant Officer Appointment was revoked for 

failure to complete the Warrant Officer Basic Course (WOBC) and the Warrant Officer Technical Certification (WOTC) within two years after being appointed in accordance with Army Regulation 135-100, paragraph 2-7.1d(2).  The memorandum also informed the applicant that no formal discharge would be issued.  On 29 December 1999, Headquarters, U.S. Army Reserve Command (USARC), published orders 99-354-010, honorably discharging the applicant as a WO1 effective 30 November 1999.  On 11 February 2000, the USARC revoked the discharge order by orders 00-042-005, effective 20 December 1999.  On 
11 February 2000, the USARC also published orders 00-042-006 for the applicant as a LTC, releasing him from his current assignment by reason of MRD and assigning him to the Retired Reserve, effective 11 February 2000.

21.  On 31 May 2001, the Commandant, Adjutant General School, published a memorandum confirming disapproval of constructive credit for Phase 1 of the Warrant Officer Basic Course – Reserve Component Course.  “Your request (for constructive credit for Phase 1) has been reviewed and discussions with the Adjutant General Warrant Officer Proponency have indicated that an error has occurred.  The 1st Endorsement (undated) signed by (the Director of Training Development) was done in error.  The previous endorsement, dated 13 Aug 99, from the Adjutant General Warrant Officer Proponency, which disapproved your request, is still valid.”

22.  Army Regulation 135-100 (Army National Guard and Army Reserve Appointment of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers of the Army), chapter 2 describes the warrant officer application process and the educational requirements.  Paragraph 2-7.1d(2) and (3) states that a Reserve Component WO1, not on active duty, must successfully complete technical and tactical certification by completion of a WOBC within 2 years of appointment which can be extended for 1 additional year upon request.  According to paragraph 2-1c.1., a Warrant Officer appointee who has previously been a commissioned officer, will be provided a Statement of Understanding for Appointment of Warrant Officers, as shown in figure 2-3.1, for signature acknowledging the requirement to complete WOBC-RC within 2 years of appointment.

23.  Due to funding requirements, a Warrant Officer appointee must be assigned to a TPU Warrant Officer position before he or she can be scheduled for and attend the resident Phase 2 of WOBC-RC.  The correspondence course 
Phase 1 of WOBC-RC can be taken while in the IRR or a TPU.

24.  An advisory opinion was provided by the Director of Officer Personnel Management at AR-PERSCOM, to the effect that the applicant refused to follow the proponent’s requirements to complete WOBC within two years plus one additional year as required and that the revocation of his WO1 appointment 

should be upheld.  The opinion also expressed that he not be given another opportunity to complete WOBC.  Included with the advisory opinion, is a printout of the automated SMS System Contacts and Cases screen showing confusion about the applicant’s appointment and showing his efforts to be assigned to the IRR and a TPU between November 1996 and January 1997.  There are no entries of communication with the applicant again until February 1999 when actions were taken to correct the applicant’s appointment and Reserve Component transfer dates.  From February 1999, there are some entries showing discussion with the applicant on completion time requirements for WOBC-RC.  Also included is a 13 August 1999 memorandum endorsement from the AG School Chief of the AG Warrant Officer Proponency to the applicant denying his request for constructive educational credit for the 0420A WOBC-RC. The memorandum endorsement also informed the applicant of the time requirement to complete the required training by reference to a 25 June 1996 endorsement to that effect.  However, that endorsement was not addressed to the applicant but addressed to the PERSCOM – St. Louis Reserve Appointments Branch.

25.  The applicant provided rebuttal to the advisory opinion that he did not refuse to follow requirements in that he was never told, either verbally or in writing, that he had to complete the two Phases of WOBC within 2 years plus a 1 year extension. He did request and receive educational constructive credit for WOBC Phase 1 and had a reserved seat for the resident Phase 2.  Because of all the complications with his paperwork after his initial appointment, he was not sure for more than 2 years if he was going to be able to serve as a WO1 until he received orders in March 1999 that corrected dates and transferred him to the IRR as a WO1.  This then allowed him to be assigned to a TPU WO1 position.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Due to numerous errors in dates in the appointment process and transfers among the Reserve Components between June 1996 and February 1999, the applicant was effectively prevented from being assigned to a TPU in a WO1 position in order to be eligible to complete his 0420A WOBC-RC training requirement in the prescribed time, 2 years plus a I year extension.  When the dates of appointment and transfers were corrected by orders on 29 January 1999, and the applicant assigned to a TPU by orders dated 30 April 1999, there was insufficient time for the applicant to complete the required training between 30 April 1999 and 30 November 1999 when his appointment was revoked due to failure to complete this required training.  In effect, he was only allowed 7 months to complete the required training instead of 3 years.  It is accepted and justifiable that the applicant did not complete the correspondence course Phase 1 of the 

WOBC-RC or take earlier action to obtain constructive educational credit for Phase 1.  The confusion in the appointment dates, MRD, and transfers between Reserve Components left him in justifiable doubt as to when or if his appointment would be validated.

2.  There is no evidence of record that the applicant was provided the “Statement of Understanding for Appointment of Warrant Officers” as required by AR 135-100, which specifies the 2 year training completion requirement.  His contention that he was not informed of the training time requirement is accepted for the period up to February 1999.  Beginning February 1999, however, the SMS Contacts and Cases data shows that there was discussion with the applicant on this issue, but this was too late for the applicant to comply.  The contention presented by the AG School Chief of the AG Warrant Officer Proponency on 
13 August 1999, that the applicant had been informed of the training time limit requirement by a 25 June 1996 memorandum endorsement, is not accepted since this endorsement was addressed to the PERSCOM – St. Louis Reserve Appointments Branch and not to the applicant.  There is no evidence that the applicant was ever aware of this communication before receiving the 13 August 1999 communication.  The application for Reserve Warrant Officer appointment and the Memorandum of Appointment make no mention of the training time requirement.

3.  The applicant’s credentials of 28 years in the service as an officer and completion of Command and General Staff College, the Civil Affairs Officer Advanced Course, the Military Police Officer Advanced Course, the National Security Completion Course, the Equal Opportunity School courses, the Juris Doctor degree, do not qualify for constructive educational credit for Phase 1 of the WOBC-RC since they do not show or demonstrate that the applicant has the specific technical knowledge and skills required of a MOS 420A, Military Personnel Technician Warrant Officer.  As such, the applicant should complete both Phases of the 0420A WOBC-RC course without constructive credit.

4.  It is not accepted that the lack of a Junior Officer Development Support Form or quarterly counseling on his OER to inform him of education requirements is responsible for him not knowing about or completing the required WOBC-RC within 2 years, plus 1 year extension.

5.  In summary, as a matter of fairness and justice, the applicant should be offered a new Reserve Warrant Officer 042A WO1 appointment and allowed up to 3 years from point of acceptance to complete the required training without constructive credit.  The applicant will have to obtain assignment in a TPU through normal procedures.  He should enroll in and complete Phase 1 of the 0420A WOBC-RC course as soon as possible and then obtain assignment for Phase 2 of the course in a timely manner.

6.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected, as an exception to policy and regulation, for the individual concerned by:

a.  issuing him a new memorandum of appointment as a Reserve Warrant Officer WO1, MOS 042A, Military Personnel Technician, with a current effective date, assuming he is otherwise medically and morally qualified;

b.  issuing to him for his signature and return a “Statement of Understanding for Appointment as a Warrant Officer” (according to Figure 2-3.1, AR 135-100), with paragraph 2 modified to read as follows, and a 3rd paragraph added before the last paragraph as follows:

“I further understand that if I am appointed as a warrant officer in the Reserve of the Army without concurrent active duty, that this appointment is contingent on technical and tactical certification by successful completion of the appropriate Warrant Officer Basic Course (WOBC), Phase 1 and 2, within 2 years from the date I sign this statement.  This signed statement must be returned to the sender to arrive within 90 days from (date of issue) or my Warrant Officer appointment will be revoked.

I understand that as a Reserve component warrant officer not on active duty, 
I may request a 1-year extension, when through no fault of my own, I am unable to successfully complete the technical and tactical certification within 2 years as specified above.”; and

c.  upon receiving the oath of office and the above statement of understanding signed by the applicant within 90 days of the issue of the appointment memorandum, transfer him from the Retired Reserve to the IRR as a LTC and take necessary action to assign him to the IRR as a WO1.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:

__rw___  ___pm___  __kl__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		___Raymond J. Wagner__
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000050354	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010920	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	PART	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	106.001 - Restoration	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.		

1.  The applicant was appointed as a Reserve Warrant Officer on 12 September 1996.  Under the requirements of AR 135-100, he was required to complete the Warrant Officer Basic Course (WOBC) within 3 years (2 years plus 1 year extension) by 12 September 1999.  He did not complete this requirement and his appointment was correctly revoked.  The applicant has not supplied adequate evidence to prove that he, an officer with over 28 years service in the service, did not know or was not informed that he was required to complete this training in 
3 years from the time of appointment.  From 14 September 1996 to 30 November 1999 in the IRR and TPU programs, he had sufficient time to meet this education requirement.  His effort to obtain constructive educational credit for Phase 1 of the WOBC in November 1999 was initiated too late to satisfy the requirement to complete the WOBC within 3 years.  There are no provisions for additional extension beyond the 3 years.  The requirements for quarterly counseling and an officer support form do not place the responsibility on his supervisors to have informed him of the 3 year WOBC completion requirement.

2.  When the Reserve Warrant Officer appointment was revoked, he should have been returned to his status before the issue of the appointment, a Lieutenant Colonel in the Retired Reserve.  As such, the record should be so corrected and the applicant should be reinstated in the Retired Reserve effective the day he was transferred out of the Retired Reserve, 14 September 1996.