IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 14 June 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180000538 BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :X :X :X DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 14 June 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180000538 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, in effect, payment of a Warrant Officer Accession Bonus (WOAB) of $20,000.00 in accordance with Army National Guard (ARNG) Selected Reserve Incentive Program (SRIP) Policy Number 16-01. 2. The applicant states: a. On 22 August 2016, while under SRIP 16-01, she became proponent approved to pursue warrant officer (WO) military occupational specialty (MOS) 890A (Ammunition Warrant Officer). This qualified her for a bonus on that same date. b. On 28 September 2016, she was transferred into her 890A warrant officer position. Due to administrative delays, the incumbent she was replacing remained slotted in the position. A bonus control number (BCN) could not be pulled from the Guard Incentive Management System (GIMS), because there was not a “true” vacancy. b. The incumbent was a known loss and had agreed to transfer in June 2016. A “true” vacancy did not exist until the incumbent was finally transferred on 15 November 2016. On this date, SRIP 17-01 was in effect, which announced the Student Loan Repayment Program (SLRP) restriction. The statement provided by Chief Warrant Officer Five (CW5) JPF indicates the applicant would have signed a contract for the WOAB on 22 August 2016 under SRIP 16-01, if the incumbent transferred on the agreed upon June 2016 date (after 2016 Annual Training (AT)). 3. The applicant provides: * email thread covering the period 9 March to 22 April 2016 * email dated 14 December 2016 * CW5 JPF (retired) memorandum, dated 3 August 2017 * captain (CPT) DLS memorandum, dated 4 August 2017 * Applicant’s ETP request, dated 14 August 2017 * Warrant Officer One (WO1) JCR’s memorandum, dated 18 August 2017 * Chief Warrant Officer Two (CW2) memorandum for record, dated 21 August 2017 * Office of the Chief of Ordnance memorandum, dated 22 August 2016 * Colonel (COL) JTO memorandum, dated 21 September 2017 * National Guard Bureau (NGB) ETP Denial, dated 22 November 2017 * Excerpts from SRIP 16-01 and 17-01 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant enlisted in the ARNG on 21 September 2005. On 27 January 2012, she extended her enlistment and signed an Annex L - SLRP Addendum in connection with the extension. 2. An email thread covering the period 9 March to 22 April 2016, shows the warrant officer strength managers (WOSM) discussing with the applicant a projected warrant officer (890A) vacancy, the $20,000 WOAB, and how to apply. 3. On 22 August 2016, the Office of the Chief Ordnance evaluated the applicant’s request for predetermination for appointment as a warrant officer. It was determined she did have the requisite training, experience, and education required and was technically qualified for MOS 890A (Ammunition Warrant Officer) pending completion of the Warrant Officer Basic Course (WOBC). 4. A memorandum for record dated 1 November 2016 from the NGB Officer Incentives Program Manager indicates there was a WOAB processing issue within GIMS, and since the issues were occurring at ARNG level or higher, WOAB incentive contracts were allowed to be signed after the date of appointment and submitted in GIMS until the issue was corrected. The applicant’s record contains a signed WOAB agreement showing bonus control number O17070003WI. 5. An NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) for the period ending 13 December 2016 shows she was discharged on appointment as a warrant officer. 6. Oaths of Office show the applicant was appointed as a Reserve warrant officer of the Army on 14 December 2016. 7. An email from the Wisconsin ARNG (WIARNG) Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel/G-1 dated 14 December 2016, shows it was brought to his attention that the current SRIP did not allow the applicant to receive the WOAB. He ordered an inquiry to determine the facts of the applicant’s case and the preparation of an ETP on behalf of the applicant. 8. On 14 August 2017, the applicant submitted an ETP request to the Joint Force Headquarters (JFHQ) WIARNG Incentives Manager. She states: a. Under the SRIP in place in March 2016, her warrant officer recruiter suggested she may be eligible for a WOAB. The plan was for the incumbent to transfer to an MOS immaterial position in the Recruiting and Retention Battalion after the unit's June 2016 AT. That move would allow the applicant to contract for a bonus. b. However, by the time the applicant was approved by the ordnance proponent on 22 August 2016, the incumbent had not transferred. The applicant was told this was because of an administrative delay in the processing of the transfer paperwork. c. On 1 October 2016, the applicant became ineligible for a bonus. New guidance issued by NGB, effective on the same date, stated because she had previously used the SLRP, she was no longer eligible for the WOAB. d. The delay in processing the transfer of the incumbent ultimately cost the applicant the $20,000 bonus. Her warrant officer recruiter said he pulls bonus contracts on the date of proponent approval, which was 22 August 2016 for the applicant; however, he could not pull the applicant’s due to that delay. e. The applicant believes she should be issued a bonus because the incumbent was a projected loss. To fill that known loss was the reason the applicant was coming on board. She enclosed four memoranda to support her case. 9. On 21 September 2017, JFHQ, WIARNG, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel/G-1 (COL JTO), recommended denial of the applicant’s ETP for the WOAB. He stated: a. Throughout the pre-appointment process, the applicant did not meet eligibility criteria required to contract for the WOAB. National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-7 and ARNG FY 16 and FY 17 SRIPs require the WOAB be issued to an officer who is filling an Automated Unit Vacancy System (AUVS) top-loaded vacancy. b. The timeline of events preventing the applicant's contracting for the WOAB is outlined below: (1) The applicant accessed into unit identification code (UIC) WQSRA1, Paragraph/Line Number (Para/Lin) 206-01. This position remained occupied by another warrant officer from 24 January 2015 until 15 November 2016. (2) On 22 August 2016, the applicant was approved for MOS 890A by the Office of the Chief of Ordnance. Beginning this day, the applicant could have contracted for the WOAB, if any 890A vacancy existed. (3) On 28 September 2017, the applicant transferred to UIC WQSRA1, Para/Lin 206-01, coded 9993 excess. The hard slot remained occupied by another warrant officer. (4) On 1 October 2017, ARNG SRIP Policy #17-01 went into effect. This policy prevented warrant officers who previously held the SLRP from contracting for the WOAB. The applicant previously received the SLRP as an enlisted incentive. This disqualified her from eligibility from that date forward. 10. The NGB denied her WOAB ETP request on 22 November 2017. The Chief, Personnel Programs and Resources, notified her that: a. Her ETP to retain the $20,000 WOAB was denied. b. The applicant signed an agreement for the WOAB while receiving SLRP, which violated section 308j of Title 37, United States Code. c. The applicant’s contract/bonus addendum was signed after the accession/appointment which violated ARNG SRIP 17-01. d. The discrepancies identified violated law and the ARNG does not have the authority to approve this request. The State Incentive Manager was terminate the incentive without recoupment effective on the contract start date. e. The applicant was advised to file a claim with the ABCMR in accordance with AR 15-185 (ABCMR), if there was a belief that an error or injustice existed. 11. In support of her request the applicant provided letters from members of her unit supporting and recommending approval her ETP request. The members include her commander, the WOSM, the incumbent in the position she was to assume, a recruiting and retention officer, and CW5 JPF (retired). The letters show a timeline of events, submission and processing of all related personnel actions, and identification of systems failures. The letters state, in summary – * the WOAB was used for its intended purpose to incentivize the applicant to do what she previously would not do and to fill a projected vacancy * the agreed upon transfer date of the incumbent was after AT (4 to 18 June 2016) * on 19 June 2016 AT was complete * the applicant was eligible for WOAB on 22 August 2016, and this date should be the effective date of her WOAB agreement * on 28 September 2016, the applicant transferred in the 890A position (incumbent remained slotted in the position) * due to an administrative delay the incumbent was not transferred on the agreed upon date * on 1 October 2016, Soldiers who had ever received the SLRP were not eligible to receive the WOAB * on 15 November 2016, the incumbent transferred, creating a WIARNG 890A vacancy * on 14 December 2016, the applicant graduated Warrant Officer Candidate School, closing her eligibility window to sign a bonus agreement * the delay prevented the vacancy from appearing in AUVS, which prevented the applicant’s contract from being pulled in Guard Incentive Management System (GIMS) * the delay cost the applicant $20,000 * the delay should not negatively impact the applicant, because it was at no fault of her own * the applicant is a great asset to the organization REFERENCES: 1. Title 37, U.S. Code, section 308j, provides that the Secretary concerned may pay an accession bonus under this section to an eligible person who enters into an agreement with the Secretary to accept an appointment as an officer in the Armed Forces; and to serve in the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve in a skill to mitigate a current or projected significant shortage of personnel for a period specified in the agreement. A person may not receive an affiliation bonus or accession bonus under this section and financial assistance under chapter 1608, 1609, or 1611 of Title 10 or under section 302g of this title for the same period of service. 2. National Guard Regulation 600-7 (Selective Reserve Incentive Programs), chapter 2, states enlistment bonus contracts are valid only with bonus control numbers which will be issued from the State Incentive Management Office to counselors and reported to NGB. The State Incentive Manager will verify accession packets as prescribed by state policy for bonus control numbers, accuracy of enlistment contract and bonus addendum, critical skill and bonus unit eligibility, valid position vacancy, and required educational level. 3. ARNG FY16 SRIP Policy Number 16-01 prescribes standards for administering the ARNG SRIP. This policy in conjunction with ARNG Policy #14-01 and NGR 600-7 supersedes all previous SRIP policies. It provides recruiting and retention incentives to assist in filling critical shortages. Incentives are implemented in those situations where other less costly methods have proven inadequate in supporting unit and skill staffing requirements. Enclosure 2, paragraph 6, shows the ARNG offered newly commissioned warrant officers a $20,000.00 WOAB based upon a 6-year service obligation in AOC 890A, excluding tier levels. 4. ARNG FY17 SRIP Policy Number 17-01 prescribes standards for administering the ARNG SRIP. It states Soldiers receiving or who have ever received financial assistance through the loan repayment program, in accordance with sections 16201, 16301, or 16303 of Title 10, United States Code, are not eligible to receive the WOAB. No exceptions are authorized to cancel an SLRP incentive to receive a WOAB. 5. DoDI 1304.4 (General Bonus Authority for Officers) establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for the payment of a bonus, in accordance with Section 332 of Title 37, United States Code, to persons, members, or officers who accept a commission or appointment as an officer in a Military Service. In addition to meeting the minimum eligibility requirements listed in Paragraph 3.1.b., an eligible person must not have received financial assistance through a loan repayment program, in accordance with Sections 16201, 16301, 16302, or 16303 of Title 10, United States Code. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends she should be paid a WOAB in the amount of $20,000.00 in conjunction with her appointment as a warrant officer in the WIARNG. 2. The evidence shows the applicant extended in the ARNG for the SLRP in January of 2012. She was later recruited to fill a projected warrant officer vacancy with a WOAB under SRIP Policy Number 16-01. 3. The evidence shows the WIARNG recommended denial of the applicant’s ETP request and the NGB denied her request for ETP. Evidence further shows: a. The applicant was accessed into a position that remained occupied by another warrant officer from 24 January 2015 until 15 November 2016. b. On 22 August 2016, the applicant was approved for MOS 890A by the Office of the Chief of Ordnance. On that date, the applicant could have contracted for the WOAB, if an 890A vacancy existed. c. On 28 September 2017, the applicant transferred to an excess slot. The hard slot remained occupied by another warrant officer. d. On 1 October 2017, ARNG SRIP Policy 17-01 was effective. The policy prevented warrant officers who previously received the SLRP from contracting for the OAB. The applicant previously received the SLRP as an enlisted incentive, making her ineligible to receive the WOAB on that date. BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20180000538 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20180000538 8 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2