PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            20 December 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001055129

	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	
	Ms. Stephanie Thompkins		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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 that his date of rank for chief warrant officer four (CW4) be adjusted to 17 March 2000.

3.  The applicant states that due to several administrative errors, through no fault of his own or his commander, he was not promoted in a timely manner.  He also states that he was advised to attend the Warrant Officer Staff Course (WOSC) for promotion and he was not required to attend since he attained 3 years time in grade as a CW3 effective 1 October 1998.  He was placed in a CW4 position effective 17 March 2000 and this is the date he was eligible for promotion.  He submits copies of his National Guard Bureau Forms 0122E for promotion to CW3 and CW4, his Service School Academic Evaluation Report, dated 2 February 2001, and National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-101, table 7-2 with interim change 101 in support of his application.

4.  The applicant’s military records were not provided to the Board.  Information herein was obtained from documentation submitted by the applicant that shows he was promoted to CW3 effective 12 February 1995 while serving as a member of the Kentucky Army National Guard.

5.  He completed the WOSC effective 2 February 2001 and was promoted to CW4 effective 21 January 2001, with a date of rank of the same date.

6.  NGR 600-101 specifies that completion of the WOSC and 3 years time in grade as a CW3 is required for promotion to CW4.

7.  NGR 600-101, Interim Change 101, implemented on 1 October 1996 specifies that effective 1 October 1998, warrant officers, who on this date have attained 3 years time in grade, are not required to complete the WOSC.

8.  Current promotion policy specifies that antedating of either the effective date of promotion or promotion eligibility date will not entitle a Reserve warrant officer to increased pay and allowances.

9.  The Chief, Personnel Division, Departments of the Army and the Air Force National Guard Bureau, expressed the opinion that the applicant provided a self-authored statement that he was not promoted when he first became eligible.  Unfortunately, he did not provide substantive evidence to support his claim.  The supporting statement from his present commander dated 13 March 2001, merely requests that the date of rank be changed.  Again, there is nothing to support a claim of either error or injustice.  However, the applicant’s previous commander provided a statement on 12 July 2001, that the applicant was qualified for promotion when he first became eligible.  Time in grade is just one of the many requirements necessary to be promoted.  Solely meeting the requirement does 

not mean one will be promoted in a position vacancy.  After the requirements have been met, the commander must recommend the officer for promotion.  An interim change to a regulation was overlooked causing the applicant to apply for a school that was not necessary for a position vacancy promotion.  It was recommended relief be granted as requested, if the applicant’s command can show he met all requirements of NGR 600-101, on the date he completed the time-in-grade criteria, and in effect, denial of the application if the applicant’s command cannot show he met all requirements of NGR 600-101, on the date he completed the time-in-grade criteria.

10.  The opinion was forwarded to the applicant for his acknowledgment/rebuttal on 30 July 2001.  He concurred on 6 August 2001.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant is entitled to adjustment of his date of rank for CW4 to 17 March 2000, the date he was assigned to the higher-grade position.

2.  The Board agrees with the National Guard Bureau that the applicant has not provided substantive evidence to support his contention that he was not promoted in a timely manner due to several administrative errors.  However, the applicant was eligible for the promotion when he was placed in a CW4 position effective 17 March 2000, with more than 3 years time in grade in the CW3 rank.  

3.  Notwithstanding the opinion from the National Guard Bureau, the Board notes that the applicant did not request correction to his date of rank to 1 October 1998, his time in grade date; therefore, his command will not be requested to show he met all the requirements for promotion on that date or otherwise prior to 17 March 2000.

4.  It is also noted that the applicant was not required to complete WOSC for promotion to CW4 because he met the time in grade for this promotion based on an interim change to CW4 promotion policy.  The applicant completed the course after his assignment to a CW4 position and completion was not one of the requirements he needed to meet for promotion to CW4.  

5.  The Board further notes that any correction to the applicant’s promotion eligibility date does not entitle him, as a CW4, to increased pay and allowances.

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

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing the individual concerned was promoted to chief warrant officer four with a date of rank of 17 March 2000.

BOARD VOTE:  

__jns___  _le_____  _tbr____      GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

			John N. Slone
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001055129	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20011220	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT 	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.