MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            2 August 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001053214

	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. Lee Cates		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. John P. Infante		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: That, as an exception, his service in the Army Reserve (USAR) as a Warrant Officer be applied to his service in the Army National Guard (ARNG). 

APPLICANT STATES: That, while in WOCS, he heard he would be eligible to be promoted to the rank of Chief Warrant Officer 2 (CW2) upon graduation of WOBC (Warrant Officer Basic Course).  Everyone in the course graduated as a Warrant Officer 1 (WO1).  He provides one page of National Guard Bureau (NGB) Regulation 600-101.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records were only partially provided and attempts to locate pertinent records were to no avail.  The available records show:

On 15 December 1968, the applicant enlisted in the USAR.  He was promoted to master sergeant (pay grade E-8) and subsequently appointed first sergeant (pay grade E-8).   

On 7 July 1995, he was appointed to the rank of WO1, in the USAR.

During the period 22 July to 2 August 1996, the applicant attended the Food Service Technician WOBC as a WO1.

There are no records for the applicant from 2 August 1996 to present.

At some point, the applicant was separated from the USAR and appointed in the ARNG.

On 5 April 2001, the Chief, Personnel Division, National Guard Bureau (NGB) opined that, under NGB Regulation 600-101, an individual in the ranks of MSG (E8) through CSM (E9) who is eligible for MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) training may be promoted to CW2 after completion of the WOCS (Warrant Officer Candidate School) and the WOBC.  The Adjutant General of the state of Connecticut was not required to promote the applicant at an earlier date.  There is no evidence to support his claims of error or injustice.

On 17 May 2001, the NGB opinion was provided to the applicant for his acknowledgement/rebuttal.  He did not respond.

NGB Regulation 600-101, shows that enlisted soldiers in the rank of master sergeant (MSG) (E-8) through command sergeant major (CSM) (E-9) who have served a minimum of 2 consecutive years as an E8/E9 may be appointed to CW2 in one of two ways: (1) if they are certified by the MOS proponent prior to the date of initial appointment or (2) after completion of WOCS and WOBC.  

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a presumption of regularity applies that the records of the individual concerned are correct.

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

1.  There is no evidence and the applicant has not provided any evidence to support his contention that he should have been promoted upon completion of WOCS and WOBC in the USAR.  The NGB regulation provided gives that authority to The Adjutant General of the state in question; however, the applicant was not a member of the ARNG at the time of his completion of those courses and therefore it becomes moot. 

2.  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 and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that her discharge was conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.

3.  This Board operates under the standard of presumption of regularity in governmental affairs.  The standard states, in effect, that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board must presume that all actions taken by the military were proper.  There is nothing in the records or in the evidence submitted by the applicant that overcomes this presumption.

4.  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

_jpi____  _rjw____  _bje___         DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001053214	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010802	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	102.0700	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.