BOARD DATE: 5 November 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150002236 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 selection (interpreted to mean reconsideration) for promotion to chief warrant officer four (CW4) by a Special Selection Board (SSB)/Promotion Advisory Board (PAB). She further requests a personal appearance before the board if warranted. 2. The applicant states: a. The DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER)) confirming she completed the Warrant Officer Advance Course (WOAC) was not available until recently. b. At the time she attended the course, she had been recalled to active duty in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and she did not receive a DA Form 1059 when she graduated. c. Without the DA Form 1059 in her records, she was not considered fully qualified for promotion to the next rank. d. When she found out it was not in her records, she researched how to get it corrected. Now it is in her records and her records show she completed WOAC in 2007; she should have been selected for CW4 by the 2008 promotion board. 3. The applicant provides a self-authored letter to this Board and a copy of her DA Form 1059, dated 11 March 2014. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant is currently serving in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) as a chief warrant officer three (CW3). She was promoted to CW3 effective 30 November 2007; however, her date of rank (DOR) for CW3 is 21 October 2001. 2. Her record contains and she provides a DD Form 1059, dated 11 March 2014, which shows she completed the Electronic Systems Maintenance Technician WOAC from 18 June through 29 July 2007. This form was digitally signed by the rater, the reviewing officer and the applicant on 11 March 2014. 3. A review of her record in the Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS) reveals this DD Form 1059 was not entered in her official military personnel file (OMPF) until 23 July 2014. 4. Orders M-04-700701, issued by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), St. Louis, Missouri on 30 April 2007, ordered her to active duty in support of OIF. 5. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained on 13 March 2015 from Chief, Officer Promotions, HRC, Fort Knox, Kentucky. This official opined the following: a. Based on a review of our records and the information provided, we find that the applicant's request for promotion reconsideration by a Special Selection, PAB to CW4 does have merit in part. b. Even if the applicant's records had been coded Military Education Qualified, there is no guarantee that she would have been selected for promotion; however, there is definitive proof that candidates deemed not educationally qualified are automatically non-selected for Reserve Component promotions. In addition, an audit of her files reveal that she had not reviewed or certified several of her prior-year CW4 board files, in accordance with the respective Military Personnel Message Instructions. Had she done so, there would have been more than a reasonable chance that the error could have been discovered and corrected many years ago. c. Department of Defense Instruction 1320.11, pursuant to Title 10, U.S. Code (10 USC) sections 628(b), 14502(b); Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions), chapter 7; and AR 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers), paragraph 3-19, prohibits consideration of any person who by maintaining reasonably careful records may have discovered and taken steps to correct that (said) error or omission on which the original board based its decision of non-selection; nonetheless, the primary responsibility for submitting the WOAC DA Form 1059 to HRC was the responsibility of the respective Army Service Training School. Therefore in fairness, reconsideration should be warranted from Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 to FY2014, unless proven otherwise ineligible. 6. The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion on 25 March 2015, for information and to allow her the opportunity to submit comments or a rebuttal. However, she did not respond. 7. The applicant provides a one-page self-authored letter to the board as background, dated 22 January 2015, wherein she states: a. She became a warrant officer in October 1994 while serving on active duty. In March 1997, she left active duty under the Voluntary Separation Incentive Program in the rank of CW2. b. She went into the Reserve in a troop program unit (TPU) status. While serving in the Reserve, she was selected for promotion to CW3 in 2000 and in the summer she went from a TPU status to an individual ready reserve (IRR) status in order to care for her mother. However, she never received her promotion to CW3. She went back into a TPU status for 4 months in 2003 and still did not receive her promotion to CW3. c. In 2007 she was recalled to active duty in support of OIF still in the rank of CW2. Because she was coming out of an IRR status to support OIF, she was required to go through refresher training and attend WOAC. Upon completion of WOAC, she was deployed to Iraq with the unit she was augmenting. d. While she was deployed, she inquired into her CW3 promotion and received orders for promotion to CW3 while in Iraq. She was also told she had been selected for CW4 in 2006 while in the IRR. Following discharge from active duty she re-entered a TPU status. e. Since 2008 until now she has corresponded with her branch about her selection to CW4 and was not concerned about the status of her WOAC attendance. However, in 2013 she discovered she had not received credit for attending the course. After some research and networking, she was able to get with the point of contact at the school and obtain her DA Form 1059 showing she had completed the course in 2007. f. She concludes that she has been non-selected for CW4 due to her records not containing her DA Form 1059. She believes she would have been selected for CW4 during the 2008 promotion board. 8. Army Regulation 135-155 prescribes policy and procedures used for selecting and promoting commissioned officers (other than commissioned warrant officers) of the Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) and of commissioned and warrant officers of the USAR. a. Paragraph 2-5 (Eligibility for consideration) states warrant officers serving in a grade below CW4, in an active Reserve status, may be selected for promotion provided they meet the minimum promotion time in grade and military education requirements in table 2-3 not later than the date the selection board convenes. Table 2-3 states promotion from CW3 to CW4 the maximum years in lower grade is 5 years and graduation from a WOAC is a mandatory requirement after 1 January 1994. b. Paragraph 3-19 (Promotion Reconsideration Boards) states officers and warrant officers who have either failed selection for promotion, or who were erroneously not considered for promotion through administrative error may be reconsidered for promotion by either a PAB or SSB, if appropriate. This document also provides that PABs/SSBs will convene to correct/prevent an injustice to an officer or former officer who was eligible for promotion but whose records, through error, were not submitted to a mandatory promotion selection board for consideration or contained a material error when reviewed by the mandatory selection board. 9. Army Regulation 600-8-29 prescribes policies and procedures governing promotion of Army commissioned and warrant officers on the active duty list. Chapter 7 provides that SSBs are governed by the same instructions provided to the boards that considered or should have considered an officer for promotion. a. Paragraph 7-2 states SSBs may be convened under 10 USC section 628 to consider or reconsider commissioned or warrant officers for promotion when Headquarters Department of the Army (HQDA) discovers one or more of the following: (1) An officer was not considered from in or above the promotion zone by a regularly-scheduled board because of administrative error (SSB required). (2) The board that considered an officer from in or above the promotion zone acted contrary to law or made a material error (SSB discretionary). (3) The board that considered an officer from in or above the promotion zone did not have before it some material information (SSB discretionary). b. A material error is defined as being of such nature that in the judgment of the reviewing official (or body), had it been corrected at the time the officer was considered by the board that failed to recommend him/her for promotion, it would have resulted in a reasonable chance that the officer would have been recommended for promotion. Reconsideration may also be granted when material information was missing from the officer's file when seen by a promotion board. 10. Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System (ERS)) prescribes the policy for completing evaluation reports and associated support forms that are the basis for the Army's ERS. It states, in pertinent parts, Commandants will ensure that: * AERs are properly prepared * Each student receives a copy of the completed AER * Schools will submit completed AERs to the appropriate address at HQDA to arrive within 90 days after the "THRU" date of the AER * Completed AERs are filed in the rated Soldier's OMPF 11. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)), paragraph 2-11, states that applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's request for promotion reconsideration to CW4 by an SSB or PAB has been carefully considered. 2. Her contention is her missing WOAC AER was, in essence, a material error and since WOAC was an educational requirement for promotion from CW3 to CW4, this caused her non-selection for CW4. She completed WOAC in July 2007; however, her DA Form 1059 was not input into iPERMS until July 2014. 3. The advisory opinion stated regulatory guidance does prohibit consideration of any person who by maintaining reasonably careful records may have discovered and taken steps to correct that (said) error or omission on which the original board based its decision of non-selection; nonetheless, the primary responsibility for submitting the WOAC AER to HRC was the responsibility of the respective Army Service Training School. They further opined that as a matter of equity reconsideration should be warranted from FY2008 to FY2014. 4. The ABCMR is not a promotion board; if and when it determines an error, the Board may direct an appropriate agency to take corrective action. The corrective action with promotion issues is normally via a PAB or SSB. In order to qualify for a PAB or SSB, there must be a material error. 5. The applicant also requested a personal appearance hearing. However, by regulation, an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the Board. Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the Board or by the Director of the ABCMR, when the evidence is insufficient to render a fair and equitable decision. BOARD VOTE: ___x_____ _x_______ _x____ 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 all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. submitting her records to a duly constituted SSBs or PABs for promotion consideration for CW4, under the FY2008 through FY2014 criteria; b. if selected, further correct her records by showing she was promoted to CW4 on her date of eligibility, as determined by appropriate Departmental officials, using the appropriate criteria, provided she was otherwise qualified and met all other prerequisites for promotion; and c. if not selected, so notifying the applicant. ____________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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100024805 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150002236 7 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1