RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 April 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060008684 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. Gerard W. Schwartz Acting Director Mr. W. W. Osborn, Jr. Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: Mr. Curtis L. Greenway Chairperson Mr. Michael J. Flynn Member Mr. Edward E. Montgomery Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that he be credited with his previous time in grade as a National Guard chief warrant officer two (CW2). 2. The applicant states, in effect, that after serving as a CW2 for approximately 4 years and 10 months, he was appointed a commissioned officer. When he reverted to his previous status of CW2 he should have received credit for time in grade. 3. The applicant provides copies of his 1990 promotion memorandum to CW2, his 1994 commissioning certificate and orders, 2006 discharge orders as a captain, 2006 appointment orders as a CW2 and an exchange of email messages about his status. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant was appointed and Federally recognized in the Army National Guard as a warrant officer one (WO1) on 16 December 1987. He was promoted to chief warrant officer two (CW2) on 31 May 1990. He served 4 years, 4 months and 24 days time in grade as a CW2. 2. He applied for and was appointed a second lieutenant in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) on 24 March 1995. Subsequently he was promoted to first lieutenant on 16 April 1997 and to captain on 1 August 2001. 3. After serving 4 years, 7 months and 7 days as a captain, the reverted back to CW2 effective 8 March 2006 with the same date of rank. 4. National Guard Regulation 600-101, chapter 2 provides that a warrant officer may be reappointed in the previous warrant officer rank satisfactorily held. Commissioned officers or former commissioned officers in the rank of captain and who have at least four years experience in the appointment specialty may be appointed to CW2. 5. Army Regulation 135-155 (National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers),Table 2-3 (Warrant officer time in grade and military education requirements) states that the education requirement for promotion to CW3 is the Warrant Officer Advance Course. 6. In a 20 October 2006 memorandum, the Director of Aviation Personnel Proponency, Headquarters, U.S. Army Aviation Warfighting Center and Fort Rucker, Alabama indicated that the applicant's request for constructive credit for the Aviation Warrant Officer Advance Course was not favorably considered. He went on to explain that the applicant needed to complete more recent training in order to demonstrate proficiency with current technology. 7. The Chief, Personnel Policy and Readiness Division of the National Guard Bureau noted, in a 26 October 2006 memorandum, that; in accordance with National Guard Regulation 600-101, paragraph 7-4a; the Adjutant General of the Minnesota National Guard had the authority to adjust the applicant's date of rank to give him credit "for time previously served satisfactorily as a Chief Warrant Officer Two." 8. During the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the National Guard Bureau. The Chief, Personnel Division noted that the regulatory provision and the applicant’s time in grade and recommended that the applicant’s date of rank be adjusted to 16 May 2001 and that he be considered for promotion to CW3 by the next state promotion board. 9. The advisory opinion was provided to the applicant and he concurred. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant’s date of rank should be adjusted to 16 May 2001 and he should receive time in grade credit for promotion purposes. 2. Since both of these items are under the direct control of the state government, the Board can only recommend that the state take corrective action. 3. It is noted that the applicant does not have constructive credit for the Warrant Office Advance Course; therefore he is advised to immediately resolve this issue. BOARD VOTE: ___ EM__ __CLG__ __MJF __ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that the Adjutant General of the Minnesota Army National Guard direct that the date of rank as a CW2 of the individual concerned be corrected to 16 May 2001 and that he be considered for promotion to CW3 at the appropriate time. ___Curtis L. Greenway___ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20060008684 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20070/12 TYPE OF DISCHARGE DATE OF DISCHARGE DISCHARGE AUTHORITY . . . . . DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION GRANT REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1. 102.07 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.