IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150014310 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ___x____ ___x____ ___x____ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150014310 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by amending Special Orders Number 165, issued by the Department of the Army and the Air Force, National Guard Bureau, dated 28 July 2015, to show the applicant was promoted to chief warrant officer four with a date of rank of 29 March 2015 (with no change in the effective date of this promotion). 2. The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to the applicant’s promotion to chief warrant officer four with a date of rank of 15 February 2015. ___________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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150014310 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 his date of rank (DOR) for promotion to chief warrant officer four (CW4) in the Massachusetts Army National Guard (MAARNG) be amended from 23 June 2015 to 18 February 2015. 2. The applicant states: a. He was eligible for promotion on 18 February 2015. His packet was submitted to the State Officer Personnel Manager and went in front of the Federal Recognition Board (FRB) on 31 October 2014. b. In accordance with National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-101 (Warrant Officer (WO) – Federal Recognition and Related Personnel Actions), paragraph 9-10, it was boarded 120 days prior to meeting his time in grade (TIG) requirement. c. The promotion packet was submitted to the National Guard Bureau (NGB) through e-tracker on 31 October 2014. He and the Massachusetts State Office of Personnel Management (OPM) tracked his promotion in e-tracker which stated “packet forwarded for scrolling on 3 November 2014.” He inquired about the status in February when he noticed that there was no movement with his packet. d. His packet was assigned to a scroll on 24 February 2015. There was a system error preventing the packet from moving to the next step, resulting in his packet being held in e-tracker from 31 October 2014 to 24 February 2015 with no movement. Due to no fault of his own, his promotion was delayed, which resulted in his DOR being 5 months after his eligibility date and 9 months after submission. 3. The applicant provides: * NGR 600-101 * Memorandum For Office Branch, subject: Recommendation for Promotion of Warrant Officer, issued by the MAARNG, dated 1 October 2014 * Personnel Qualification Record printout * Orders 303-024, issued by the DA and the AF, Joint Force Headquarters, MAARNG, dated 30 October 2014 * NGB Form 89 (Proceedings of a Federal Recognition Examining Board) * an email from the MAARNG OPM, dated 23 February 2015 * Special Orders (SO) Number 165, issued by the Department of the Army (DA) and the Air Force (AF), NGB, dated 28 July 2015 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. An NGB Form 337 (Oaths of Office) shows he was appointed as a WO1 on 14 November 2003. 2. A DA Form 71 (Oath of Office) shows he was commissioned as a U.S. Army Reserve WO on 16 June 2004. 3. A memorandum from NGB, subject: Promotion as a Reserve Commissioned WO of the Army, dated 30 November 2005, shows the applicant was promoted to chief warrant officer 2 (CW2) on 14 November 2005. 4. A memorandum from NGB, subject: Promotion as a Reserve Commissioned WO of the Army, dated 2 March 2010, shows he was promoted to CW3 on 18 February 2010. 5. Orders 303-024, issued by Joint Force Headquarters, Massachusetts National Guard, Office of the Adjutant General, dated 30 October 2014, show the applicant’s effective date of promotion to CW4 was corrected from 15 October 2014 to 18 February 2015, with a DOR of 18 February 2015. 6. SO 165, NGB, dated 28 July 2015, shows the applicant’s promotion to CW4 effective 23 July 2015 with a DOR of 23 July 2015. 7. In an advisory opinion, dated 13 July 2016, the NGB recommends approval. In reaching that recommendation, the following was provided: a. The applicant’s promotion packet to CW4 from the MAARNG was forwarded to the NGB FRB on 31 October 2014 for a unit vacancy promotion. On 23 February 2015, he was informed by the NGB FRB that his promotion packet in e-tracker had a systems glitch which delayed the packet from being assigned to a scroll. b. On 24 February 2015, the applicant’s promotion packet was assigned to a scroll. The scroll was signed on 28 July 2015. SO 165 was published showing his effective date and DOR to CW4 as 23 July 2015. c. The delay in processing was due to no fault of the applicant. For this reason, they recommend that his effective date and DOR of promotion be adjusted to 29 March 2015, which is 116 days that his promotion packet was delayed. Additionally, they recommend that he receive all back pay and allowances due to this error. d. The advisory opinion was coordinated with the NGB FRB. e. The MAARNG concurs with this recommendation. 8. A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant. He did not respond. REFERENCES: 1. NGR 600-101 prescribes policies and procedures for ARNG WO personnel management. Chapter 7 states promotion of WOs in the ARNG is a function of the State. As in original appointments, a WO promoted by State authority has a State status in the higher grade under which to function. However, to be extended Federal recognition in the higher grade, the officer must satisfy the requirements for this promotion. Promotions will be based on the DA proponent duty military occupational specialty certification via satisfactory completion or constructive credit of appropriate level of military education, time in grade, demonstrated technical and tactical competence, and potential for service in the next higher grade as determined by a FRB. 2. NGB Policy Memorandum 11-015, dated 14 June 2011, subject: Federal Recognition of WO's in the ARNG, stated ARNG WO's were initially appointed and were also promoted by the State or Territory to which the officer was assigned. The Chief, NGB, reviewed and approved those actions. a. Title 10, U.S. Code, sections 571b and 12241b (implemented by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2011), introduced a new requirement wherein all WO appointments and promotions to CW grades in the ARNG had to be made by the President of the United States. As a result, effective 7 January 2011, all initial appointments of WOs and promotions to higher grades by warrant or commission were required to be issued by the President (as delegated to the Secretary of Defense). b. Requests for appointment were required to be staffed through the DA Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1. This requirement added 90 to 120 days (or more in some instances) to the process for approval for appointments or promotions. 3. Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1552(a)(1), allows the Secretary of a military department to correct any military record of the Secretary’s department when the Secretary considers it necessary to correct an error or restore an injustice. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant requests his DOR for promotion to CW4 be adjusted to 18 February 2015 vice 23 June 2015. He bases his request on the fact that there was an error in processing his promotion packet in e-tracker, which was due to no fault of his own. 2. As a result of the 2011 NDAA, WO appointments to the next higher grade require action by the President of the United States, as delegated to the Secretary of Defense. 3. In light of the 2011 NDAA requirements, the effective date of promotion must remain 23 July 2015, the date the Secretary of Defense signed the scroll on behalf of the President of the United States. 4. It appears that the MAARNG amended Orders 303-024 to show the applicant’s effective date of promotion to CW4 from 15 October 2014 to 18 February 2015, with a DOR of 18 February 2015; however, the NGB did not amend their orders. Based on the advisory opinion, it appears he would not have been promoted effective 18 February 2015 even without the processing delay. 5. Although the advisory opinion states that his DOR should be corrected to show his promotion to CW4 with an effective date of 29 March 2015 with all back pay and allowances, this Board cannot, as a matter of law, change the effective date (i.e., the date he was authorized pay and allowances) of his appointment to CW4 as the effective date is established by action taken by the Secretary of Defense. The Board may recommend that, for all other purposes, such as promotion eligibility and seniority, his DOR be adjusted to account for the delay in processing his packet. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150014310 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150014310 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2