IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 November 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150003656 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 reconsideration of his earlier request for correction of his military records to show he was appointed as a warrant officer in 1976 and was subsequently promoted to chief warrant officer four by the time he retired. 2. The applicant states, in effect, he was kept by certain individuals from becoming a warrant officer due to racial discrimination. His commander at the time knew he (the commander) was not going to get promoted and told him because he could not get promoted, he was not going to let him make warrant officer. He went to the battalion commander who supported him; however, his warrant officer package was tampered with. The Board previously denied his request. He disagrees with this decision and he is providing additional documents for the Board's consideration. 3. The applicant provides an endorsement to an application for appointment and denial of appointment. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20130019916, on 29 July 2014. 2. The applicant provides an endorsement to an application for appointment and denial of appointment. This is considered new evidence and warrants consideration by the Board. 3. The applicant's records show he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 19 July 1967 and he held military occupational specialty 67H (UH-1 Helicopter Repairer). 4. He was honorably released from active duty on 17 July 1970 and he was transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group to complete his remaining service obligation. 5. He enlisted in the RA on 6 June 1973. He served through multiple extensions or reenlistments and he attained the rank/grade of sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7. 6. He provides: a. An endorsement to an application for appointment, dated 8 November 1976, wherein his senior commander (11th Aviation Group) forwarded his application for appointment for appearance before a board of officers. b. A memorandum dated 22 December 1976, from Headquarters, U.S. Army Europe informing him that after careful consideration, the examining board of officers did not recommend his appointment in the USAR and that his application could not be favorably considered. The reason for his non-selection is unknown. He was encouraged to reapply after 1 year. 7. He retired on 31 July 1991 and he was placed on the Retired List in his retired rank/grade of SFC/E-7 on 1 August 1991. 8. There is no evidence in his record that shows he: * reapplied or was accepted for appointment as a warrant officer * completed the required schooling for an initial appointment * executed an oath of office * was extended a commission * completed any warrant officer schools for promotion 9. Army Regulation 135-100 (Appointment of Commissioned and Warrant Officers of the Army), in effect at the time, stated all applicants for warrant officer appointment will be appointed to warrant officer one (WO1) on successful completion of warrant officer candidate school (WOCS) or WOCS – RC (Reserve Component). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The evidence provided by the applicant shows he applied for an appointment as a warrant officer in the USAR and was endorsed by his senior commander. However, that same evidence shows the examining board of officers did not recommend him for appointment in the USAR and his application was not favorably considered. The reason for his non-selection is unknown. He was encouraged to reapply after 1 year. His claim of discrimination is noted, but there is no evidence to support this claim. 2. There is no evidence in his record that shows he reapplied for or accepted an appointment as a warrant office, completed the required schooling for an initial appointment, executed an oath of office, or was extended a commission. A service member must meet various statutory and regulatory requirements to become a warrant officer. First, he must appear before an examining board of officers and be recommend for appointment into the USAR. The applicant was not recommended. 3. There is insufficient evidence to support his contention that he should have been appointed as a warrant officer. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____X____ ___X_____ ____X____ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20130019916, dated 29 July 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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150003656 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150003656 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1