MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            7 May 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002070458

	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. Stephanie Thompkins		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin 		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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 to his date of rank for chief warrant officer three (CW3) from 22 August 1996 to 19 April 1995.

APPLICANT STATES:  That in accordance with National Guard (NG) Regulation 600-101, he was eligible for promotion to CW3 effective 19 April 1995.  He also states that he should have been promoted with his contemporaries as evidenced by the officer evaluation report (OER) for the period 19 April 1995 to 18 April 1996.  Once his unit finally initiated the paperwork in January 1996, it took 8 months, to August 1996, to traverse the state and make it to the monthly promotion board, which was an unreasonable amount of time.  He submits a copy of his State promotion documents, a warrant officer advance course diploma and an OER for the period ending 18 April 1996 in support of his application.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's NG military records were not provided to the Board.  Information was obtained from his Reserve military records and documentation submitted with his application that show:

He was appointed in the Reserve as a warrant officer one, with prior enlisted service, and entered on active duty effective 4 March 1980.

He was promoted to CW2 in the Army of the United States effective 4 March 1982.  

He was promoted to CW2 in the Reserve effective 4 March 1983.

He was considered and not selected for promotion to CW3 by the 1990 and 1991 promotion boards.

He was honorably separated from active duty for failure of selection of permanent promotion effective 24 February 1991.

He was appointed in the Florida Army National Guard (FL ARNG) as a CW2 effective 19 April 1995. 

An OER for the period 19 April 1995 through 18 April 1996 shows he received ratings of “1” in the elements of professional competence, and positive comments under professional ethics and competence.  (Ratings are from 1 to 5, with 1 the highest rating).  He was placed in the second block (Usually Exceeded Requirements) under Part Vc for performance, and the second block (Promote With Contemporaries) in Part Vd, for promotion potential.  He was rated in the second block by his senior rater for potential evaluation.  The report does not contain a senior rater profile.  The senior rater’s comments are commensurate with this rating.

On 22 March 1996, his commander recommended him for promotion to CW3.

On 19 June 1996, his command recommended approval of his promotion.

On 22 July 1996, the FL ARNG, Office of The Adjutant General (TAG) requested his records be examined to determine his qualification for Federal recognition in the ARNG in the higher grade.

On 22 August 1996, the Federal Recognition Board recommended the applicant for Federal recognition for promotion effective on the same date.

On 30 September 1996 the applicant was extended Federal recognition by the National Guard Bureau (NGB) to CW3 effective 22 August 1996.

NG Regulation 600-101, chapter 7-1 prescribes the policies and procedures for Federal recognition of promotion of warrant officers in ARNG.  The regulation specifies warrant officers of the ARNG are appointed and promoted by the States and the State action must be Federally recognized.  The regulation does not specify the time required for Federal recognition boards or for promotion in the warrant officer grades.  State TAG’s manage warrant officer promotions in accordance with this regulation.

The regulation also provides that a warrant officer who has been promoted by the State and extended Federal recognition in the higher grade will be promoted concurrently to the higher grade in the Reserve of the Army with assignment to the ARNG.

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 all of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to correction to his date of rank for CW3.  He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.

2.  The applicant has not shown that his promotion was unfair or unreasonably delayed.  He appears to have been properly considered and found qualified for promotion by a Federal recognition board and promoted based upon extension of Federal recognition by the NGB.

3.  The Board notes the applicant’s assertion that he would have been promoted on 19 April 1995 based on an OER completed subsequent to that date, and is not supportive of his contentions.

4.  The Board also notes that pertinent regulations do not mandate a recommendation or promotion of a warrant officer for promotion in the ARNG.

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

_sac____  _jtm____  _kwl___      DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002070458	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020507	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.00	
2.	131.01	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.