MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  15 August 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999033199

	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. Thomas D. Howard		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Ms. Gail J. Wire		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 his date of rank for chief warrant officer three (CW3) be adjusted to September or October 1994.

APPLICANT STATES:  He was informed that he would have to attend the resident Warrant Officer Advanced Course (WOAC) to be promoted to CW3 and he completed the Correspondence Warrant Officer Senior Course (sic) in August 1994.  He later applied for the resident WOAC and graduated effective 27 June 1995.  After completing the course, he found out that he did not have to attend the resident course to be promoted.  He submits a copy of his completion certificates in support of his application.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records were not provided to the Board.  Information herein was obtained from the applicant and the Inspector General’s Office, Texas Army National Guard, which shows:

While serving as a member of the Texas Army National Guard, Aviation, the applicant was promoted to CW2 effective 6 February 1990.

Based on the required 6 years time in grade, his promotion eligibility date for promotion to CW3 was 6 February 1996.

On 1 August 1994, he completed the non-resident Aviation Senior Warrant Officer Training (SWOT) Course.

On 27 June 1995, he completed the resident Aviation WOAC.

He was promoted to CW3 effective 4 November 1995.

The Chief, Personnel Division, Army National Guard Directorate, National Guard Bureau, expressed the opinion that the applicant had completed the educational requirements that were needed during the period in question.  It appears that personnel in the state of Texas may have provided erroneous guidance with regards to his schooling requirements.  In view of the facts presented, it was recommended that his records be corrected as he has requested.

The opinion was forwarded to the applicant on 27 April 2000, and he concurred on the same date.

National Guard Regulation 600-101 provides for promotion procedures for warrant officers.  The regulation specifies that warrant officers must complete 6 years of time in the lower grade, and the SWOT or the WOAC for promotion to CW3.

Table 7-2 of this regulation shows that the revised policies will be implemented starting on the effective date of the rank coded manning document.  Table 7-1 of this regulation will be used until receipt of rank coded manning documents (TDA/MTOE). 

Table 7-1 specifies the requirement for 6 years of time in the lower grade and completion of the SWOT or WOAC for promotion to CW3.

Table 7-2 specifies upon receipt of rank coded manning documents, the requirement for promotion to CW3 in a senior warrant (SW) position is 5 years time in the lower grade and completion of the SWOT.  The table also specifies that the requirement for promotion to CW3 in a warrant officer (WO) position is the same as Table 7-1.

The applicant’s records nor the appropriate rank coded manning documents were provided to the Board.

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(s), it is concluded:

1.  The applicant is not entitled to correction of his date of rank for CW3 to September or October 1994.  He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.  The evidence of record shows he was eligible for promotion to CW3 on 6 February 1996, upon completion of 6 years time in the lower grade. 

2.  Notwithstanding the advisory opinion from the National Guard Bureau, the applicant has not shown whether he was in a SW or WO position and eligible for promotion to CW3 prior to completion of 6 years time in grade.  Regulations simply require positioning in a SW position for promotion to CW3 in 5 years.

3.  Pertinent regulations specify the military education requirement for promotion to CW3 is completion of a SWOT or WOAC and meeting the minimum time in grade promotion service.  While the applicant completed the required military education in 1994, he was not eligible for promotion to CW3 in 1994, as he had not served the required years in the lower grade.

4.  If the applicant can provide evidence to show he was in a SW position at the time, he may be eligible for an earlier promotion date.  The applicant may then reapply for correction of his promotion date.

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

__th___  __ao____  ___gw___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000815	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.