IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 May 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180007570 APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of her record to show her effective Date of Rank (DOR) for promotion to the rank/grade of Chief Warrant Officer Three (CW3) as 24 June 2017. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Orders Number 356-124, dated 21 December 2016 * Warrant Officer promotion scrolls, dated 18 January 2018 * Memorandum, Subject: Promotion as a Reserve Commissioned Warrant Officer of the Army, dated 25 January 2018 * Army Times online article * Initial appointment scrolls FACTS: 1. The applicant states the Federal Recognition board convened over the promotion to CW3 for 13 months, however, her State order was published in 2016. She knows her promotion process was unjust. She has been mobilized since April 2017 on TFE (unknown acronym) on Fort Meade, MD with other States who had personnel on the warrant officer scrolls awaiting Federal Recognition. Attached is the proof of the injustices. She was on scroll U06-17 and personnel on U07-17 were promoted before personnel on scroll U06-17. She has gotten correspondence from the Army Times that due to the Federal Recognition lengthy process, DOR adjustments and back pay will be considered. 2. A review of the applicant’s official records show the following: a. On 24 June 2008, the applicant was appointed as a Reserve commissioned warrant officer in the Michigan Army National Guard (MIARNG) and executed an oath of office. b. On 7 July 2010, by memorandum, the applicant was promoted to the rank/grade of chief warrant officer 2 (CW2), effective on 24 June 2010. c. On 21 December 2016, Orders Number 356-124, issued by the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, Lansing, MI, promoted the applicant to the rank of CW3. Additional instructions on these orders state you will not be paid at the new rank until Federal Recognition is confirmed. The effective date of promotion in the Reserve of the Army and corresponding DOR will be the date Chief, National Guard Bureau (NGB) extends Federal Recognition of State promotion. d. On 25 January 2018, Special Orders Number 22, issued by the NGB, extended Federal Recognition and promoted the applicant to the rank of CW3, effective on 5 January 2018. 3. The applicant provides: a. Warrant officer promotion scrolls showing scroll number U06-17 was approved on 8 January 2018 pending approved signed scroll, and scroll number U07-17 was approved on 24 July 2017. b. Memorandum, Subject: Promotion as a Reserve Commissioned Warrant Officer of the Army showing the applicant was promoted to CW3 effective on 5 January 2018. c. Army Times online article wherein the Secretary of the Army provided input to an article stating he was aware of the backlog of Army National Guard Soldiers who are waiting for confirmation of their new pay grades. He stated the number are too long and unacceptable as he told the Senate Armed Service Committee. d. Initial appointment scrolls showing corrections were being made by multiple States which included Michigan. 4. On 2 January 2020, the MIARNG reviewed the applicant's records and rendered an advisory opinion in her case. After a thorough review, the Director of Personnel, MIARNG opined that: a. The MIARNG does not concur with the request to adjust the applicant’s promotion Effective Date of Grade (EDOG) and DOR of CW3 to 24 June 2017. b. The state Federal Recognition board approved the applicant for Unit Vacancy Promotion (UVP) on 20 December 2016. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) submitted her packet to the NGB via electronic tracker on 29 December 2016. The NGB returned the packet for correction on 29 December 2016 and again on 3 January 2017. OPM made corrections and her packet was accepted on 6 January 2017. Her packet was assigned to scroll U06-17 on 18 January 2017. Her promotion order published over 12 months later on 25 January 2018. The scroll for the applicant and 74 other warrant officers appeared to have been delayed for 12 months. Scroll U07-17 published effective five months before the applicant’s scroll; however, the packet followed the scrolling process. c. When considering the amount of time all officers reside in the UVP process, it is the MIARNGs position that the progression to promotion takes an extraordinarily long time. Although the delay in order publication and a later scroll publishing prior to the applicant’s scroll are unfortunate, it does not lend credence to her claim that her EDOG and DOR should be adjusted to 24 January 2017. She was Federally Recognized as a CW3 on 25 January 2018 with an EDOG and DOR of 5 January 2018. 5. With this advisory, an email was provided from the Section Chief, Federal Recognition, NGB, showing scroll number U06-17 (processed longer than the usual processing time for Fiscal Year 2017) submitted on 2 March 2017, approved on 5 January 2018, would have an adjusted DOR of 29 July 2017. 6. On 16 April 2020, the applicant responded by email to the advisory opinion and stated: a. She does not agree with the State recommendation. She submitted all the information about this case when she requested the promotion to be back dated. She is on active duty today at Fort Bragg, NC, and does not have all the paperwork here. b. Just a recap of the issue, while on active duty in 2017 during her promotion year, scroll U06-17 that she was on was skipped over and for that year all other scrolls were on schedule, which meant her scroll publish date was in the June 2017 time frame. After performing her research on the matter, she learned that one person on a scroll could hold up or have the scroll removed. She is not sure who or what State caused this issue. She would have to conclude it was Michigan due to the rejection of her request. c. She is still on active duty and for all her hard work, she does not think this action should be taken lightly or just over looked due to someone not wanting to perform the task of changing her promotion date. She would hope the Board takes care of Soldiers and their careers. Therefore, her recommendation is to concur with the action. 7. National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-101 (Warrant Officers Federal Recognition and Related Personnel Actions) a. Paragraph 7-6 (Wearing of Insignia) states the wearing of the insignia of higher grade is not authorized until Federal Recognition has been extended by the Chief, NGB b. Paragraph 7-7 (Eligibility for promotion) states to be considered for Federal Recognition and concurrent Reserve of the Army promotion following State promotion to fill a unit vacancy, an ARNG warrant officer must: * be in an active status and duty military occupational specialty qualified * be medically fit and meet height and weight standards * have completed the minimum years of promotion service (6 years in the lower grade) * have completed the minimum military education requirements BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, and evidence in the records. The Board considered the applicant’s statement, her record of service, her inclusion on an appointment scroll, the length of time required for scroll approval and the completion of the subsequent year’s scroll prior to the one she was on the date of her Federal Recognition. The Board considered the advisory opinion from the MIARNG, the email from the NGB and the applicant’s response. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board majority determined that, while lengthy, the applicant’s scroll was processed in accordance with established procedures and her effective Date of Rank (DOR) was not in error or unjust. One member considered the completion of the list following the applicant’s and determined that the delay in her effective DOR caused an injustice that required correction. 2. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board majority found that relief was not warranted. ? BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : :XX GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :XXX :XXX : DENY APPLICATION 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. ? REFERENCE: NGR 600-101 (Warrant Officers Federal Recognition and Related Personnel Actions) a. Paragraph 7-6 (Wearing of Insignia) states the wearing of the insignia of higher grade is not authorized until Federal Recognition has been extended by the Chief, NGB b. Paragraph 7-7 (Eligibility for promotion) states to be considered for Federal Recognition and concurrent Reserve of the Army promotion following State promotion to fill a unit vacancy, an ARNG warrant officer must: * be in an active status and duty military occupational specialty qualified * be medically fit and meet height and weight standards * have completed the minimum years of promotion service (6 years in the lower grade) * have completed the minimum military education requirements //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20180007570 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1