BOARD DATE: 30 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001020 BOARD VOTE: __x______ __x______ __x___ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 30 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001020 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by adjusting his date of rank to chief warrant officer three to 13 November 2014. __________x________________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. BOARD DATE: 30 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001020 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests correction of his date of rank (DOR) for promotion to chief warrant officer three (CW3). 2. The applicant states, in effect, the following: a. He served on active duty for over 11 years, attaining the rank of major (MAJ). During his time on active duty, he attended the Aviation Captains' Career Course, and commanded a company in the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault). Upon departing active duty, he entered the Army National Guard (ARNG) as a warrant officer and his Warrant Officer Advanced Course (WOAC) requirements were waived by the first O-6 in his chain of command. b. The regulation changed in 2012 and he was required to receive a waiver for the WOAC. He was unaware of this regulatory change and was never notified by his personnel section. His personnel record and officer record brief (ORB) were never updated. His Guard Knowledge Online (GKO) account and ORB always indicated he was "promotable," with the WOAC as his military education description. c. His waiver requirement was first identified during his State board in July 2014. His promotion took approximately 17 months to complete. He would have completed all education requirements prior to his promotable status if it was correctly annotated in his military records. The inaccurate reporting of his promotable status falsely led him to believe he had met all of the requirements. His current DOR is 24 November 2015. 3. The applicant provides copies of: * an excerpt (paragraph 7-9) of National Guard Regulation 600-101 (Warrant Officers Federal Recognition and Related Personnel Actions), dated 1 October 1996 * a Vermont ARNG (VTARNG) memorandum, dated 26 March 2009 * a National Guard Bureau (NGB) memorandum, dated 30 May 2012 * ORBs dated 5 March 2009 and 3 April 2014 * email communication, Subject: the applicant's equivalent credit request, dated 19 August 2014 * NGB Form 89 (Proceedings of a Federal Recognition Examining Board), dated 13 November 2014 * GKO screenshots, dated 3 January 2015 and 15 January 2015 * a memorandum from the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3/5/7, Headquarters, Department of the Army, dated 27 February 2015 * an email from the Officer Personnel Manager, VTARNG, dated 2 November 2016 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant was commissioned as a Regular Army officer on 22 December 1997. He entered active duty on 5 January 1998 and served in the Aviation branch. A DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), dated 25 October 2002, shows he successfully completed the Aviation Captains' Career Course on 25 October 2002. He was promoted to MAJ on 2 October 2007. 2. A VTARNG memorandum, dated 26 March 2009 and submitted to NGB in anticipation of the applicant's appointment as a warrant officer in the VTARNG, shows the State Army Aviation Officer – Vermont recommended the applicant receive constructive credit for the WOAC based on his level of military education completed as a commissioned officer in the Aviation Branch, specifically, his completion of the Aviation Captains' Career Course in 2002. 3. The applicant was honorably discharged on 24 May 2009 and was appointed as a Reserve warrant officer of the Army on 25 May 2009, as a chief warrant officer two (CW2) in the VTARNG. 4. It appears the VTARNG's 2009 request for constructive credit on the applicant's behalf, to show he was credited with completing the WOAC, was approved. The applicant's ORB, dated 3 April 2014, shows the WOAC as his highest level of military education completed. 5. The applicant provides an email communication that addresses his equivalent credit request. The email shows his promotion packet was returned without action to his personnel section on 5 August 2014. A VTARNG representative stated he needed an approved equivalent credit for the WOAC before he could be considered by the Federal Recognition Board (FRB) process, with the Department of the Army (HQDA) G-3/5/7 as the proponent with approval authority. 6. Company C, 3rd Battalion, 126th Aviation Regiment (Air Ambulance) memorandum, dated 29 October 2014, shows the applicant was recommended for promotion to CW3. The recommendation states he met the minimum military education requirements for promotion. 7. An NGB Form 89, dated 13 November 2014, shows applicant was considered and selected for promotion to chief warrant officer three (CW3) by the VTARNG FRB. 8. A memorandum from the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3/5/7, Headquarters, Department of the Army, dated 27 February 2015, shows HQDA G-3/5/7 approved the applicant's request for constructive credit. 8. Orders 063-007, issued by the VTARNG on 4 March 2015, shows the applicant was promoted to CW3 effective 13 November 2014 with a DOR of 13 November 2014. The orders also notified him that his final DOR and effective date would be determined by the Federal recognition order and promotion memorandum. 9. Special Orders 258 AR, issued by NGB on 30 November 2015, granted the applicant Federal recognition of his promotion to CW3, effective 24 November 2015 with a DOR of 24 November 2015. The NGB also provided him a promotion memorandum, dated 30 November 2015, which shows his DOR as 24 November 2015. 10. The applicant provides: a. GKO screens shots that show the following, vis-à-vis his highest level of military education: (1) dated 3 January 2015, Qualified for Future Grade "Yes"; Military Education Description "WOAC" (2) dated 15 January 2015, Qualified for Future Grade "No"; Military Education Description "Warrant Officer Basic Course (WOBC)" b. an emailed advisory opinion from the VTARNG, dated 2 November 2016, which shows the applicant's request for WOAC equivalent credit was approved in 2009. He validated his military education during annual records review; however, he was not aware he needed to apply for constructive credit (after the regulatory change), which delayed his promotion to CW3. 11. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained on 30 November 2016, from the NGB, Deputy Chief, Personnel Policy Division, who was asked to determine if the applicant's DOR should be corrected. The advisory official noted and opined: a. On 25 May 2009, the applicant was appointed as a CW2 in the VTARNG after serving in the Regular Army, attaining the rank of major. During his tenure in the regular Army, he completed the Aviation Captains' Career Course on 25 October 2002. Prior to his appointment, a request for constructive credit WOAC was requested on 26 March 2009, and he was coded in SIDPERS "W3" (WOAC Graduated) on 5 June 2009. b. The applicant met his eligibility requirements for promotion on 25 May 2014 and his promotion packet was submitted to his State officer personnel manager to conduct an FRB on 5 August and 29 October 2014. His promotion packet was returned to his unit due to a requirement for approved WOAC constructive credit. While awaiting his constructive credit approval, he received his FRB endorsement on 13 November 2014. On 27 February 2015, HQDA G-3/5/7 granted him constructive credit. He was promoted to CW3 on 24 November 2015, approximately 18 months after his initial recommendation for promotion. c. Recommend approval, adjusting his DOR to 13 November 2014, to include all back pay. The administrative error in coding his WAOC during his initial appointment into the VTARNG misled the Soldier in being military education qualified. d. The advisory opinion was coordinated with the NGB Federal Recognition Branch and the Warrant officer Branch. 12. The applicant was provided a copy of this advisory opinion on 6 December 2016, to provide him an opportunity to comment and/or submit a rebuttal. However, he did not respond. REFERENCES: 1. NGB Regulation 600-101, in effect at that time, provides: a. Chapter 7 states that promotion of warrant officers in the ARNG is a function of the State. As in original appointments, a warrant officer appointed or promoted by State authority has a State status in the appointed or higher grade under which to function. However, to be extended Federal recognition, the warrant officer must satisfy the requirements for appointment or promotion. b. Paragraph 7-9 (Military Education Requirements) any warrant officer who completed an Army correspondence course program comparable to: Reserve Component configured warrant officer technical and tactical certification, or WOBC, or senior warrant officer training, or WOAC applicable to their current duty MOS has met the military education promotion requirement. 2. NGB Memorandum, Subject: Rescission of NGB-ARH Policy Memo# 09-068, NGR 600-101 Implementing Draft (ARNG-NRH Policy Memo# 11-059) and Interim Change to NGR 600-101, dated 1 October 1996 (ARNG-HRH Policy Memo # 12-044), dated 20 May 2012, provides former commissioned officers subsequently appointed as warrant officers may request equivalent credit for the appropriate warrant officer education course in accordance with Army Regulation 350-1, if equivalent type training has been completed while serving as a commissioned officer and is properly documented with DA Form 1059 or 1059-1. This guidance was updated in the recently published NGB Regulation 600-101, dated 3 September 2014. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant's request for correction of his DOR for promotion to CW3 was carefully considered. He contends his DOR should have been established as 13 November 2014; however, his military education constructive credit was not accurately updated in his record. 2. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was approved for WOAC constructive credit after becoming a warrant officer in 2009, based on his completion of the Aviation Captains Career Course on 25 October 2002. His military education reflected he received credit for WOAC. 3. The VTARNG determined he did not have a constructive credit waiver when his personnel section submitted his promotion packet, and requested he receive constructive credit for WOAC from HQDA G-3/5/7, which he properly submitted. Credit for WOAC was removed from his military education. 4. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was considered and recommended for promotion to CW3 by an FRB that convened on 13 November 2014. He was promoted to CW3 by the VTARNG effective 13 November 2014; however, due to issues with his military education constructive credit, it appears his Federal recognition packet was not acted upon in a timely manner. 5. The applicant received approval of constructive credit for the WOAC from HQDA G-3/5/7 on 27 February 2015. His military education was once again updated to show he received credit for WOAC, and he was granted Federal recognition for promotion to CW3 with an effective date and DOR of 24 November 2015. 6. Advisory opinions from the NGB and VTARNG both confirm the circumstances that caused the Federal recognition delay concerning the applicant's case. Both agencies recommend approval of changing the applicant's DOR to 13 November 2014. 7. The applicant's promotion delay resulted from errors on the part of the VTARNG, vis-à-vis his educational constructive credit. Had a proper determination been made with respect to his level of credited military education, he would not have had to request constructive credit from HQDA G-3/5/7. His record should have reflected he was military education qualified when selected for promotion by the FRB. The error was no fault of the applicant. 8. The effective date of promotion is established under law by Title 10, U.S. Code and is approved by the Secretary of Defense; this Board, acting under the authority of the Secretary of the Army, does not have the authority to change the effective date. However, the delay in his promotion to CW3 was due to no fault on his part. As such, the Board may recommend, as a matter of equity, correcting his DOR (not his effective date of promotion) to 13 November 2014, the DOR established at the time of his selection by the VTARNG FRB. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160004548 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160001020 6 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2