IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 April 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180011743 APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of his record to show his effective Date of Rank (DOR) as a Warrant Officer One (WO1) was effective on 11 April 2013, in lieu of, 16 June 2017. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: .DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) .Warrant Officer Candidate School Certificate, dated 21 September 2013 .National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record ofService), dated 13 September 2013 .Orders Number 317-535, dated 13 November 2013 .DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), dated 16 July2014 .DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), dated17 July 2014 .Memorandum, Subject: Request for Exception to Policy (ETP) to Grant ExtensionTemporary Federal Recognition, dated 14 April 2016 .NGB Form 89 (Proceedings of a Federal Recognition Examining Board), dated28 April 2016 .Memorandum, Subject: Recommendation for Initial Appointment for theapplicant, dated 28 April 2016 .DD Form 2808 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 14 June 2017 .NGB Form 62E (Application for Federal Recognition as an Army National Guard(ARNG) Officer or Warrant Officer and Appointment as a Reserve CommissionedOfficer or Warrant Officer of the Army in the ARNG of the United States), dated16 June 2017 .NGB Form 337 (Oaths of Office), dated 16 June 2017 .DA Form 71 (Oath of Office Military Personnel), dated 16 June 2017 .Memorandum, Subject: Certificate of Clearance/Security Determination, dated 26 June 2017 .Special Orders (SO) Number 244, dated 16 November 2017 .Case tracking worksheet FACTS: 1.The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10 UnitedStates Code (USC), section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of MilitaryRecord (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is inthe interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2.The applicant states he should have been a WO1 with an effective DOR on11 April 2013 and a Chief Warrant Officer Two (CW2) with an effective DOR on11 April 2015. Due to an administrative error from the G-1 office, he did not receive hisFederal Recognition at that time. His packet was boarded again on 28 April 2016.They tried to reconstruct his documentation to submit a new case for FederalRecognition, however, the packet was not successfully processed due to a mismatch indates in the submitted documents. On 16 June 2017, he signed all administrativedocuments in order to submit his record for Federal Recognition for the third time.Finally, Federal Recognition was published on 16 November 2017 with an effectiveDOR as a WO1 on 16 June 2017. 3.The applicant’s official records contain the following documents showing: a.On 11 April 2013, NGB Form 89 was completed showing the applicant wasphysically qualified, possessed the moral character, and general qualifications to be appointed as a WO1 b.On 24 September 2013: (1)NGB Form 62 was completed showing the applicant was applying for FederalRecognition as a WO1 in the ARNG. The form was endorsed by a Recruiting and Retention Battalion official, as well as an official of the Puerto Rico ARNG (PRARNG). (2)Having had prior enlisted service in the PRARNG, the applicant wasappointed as a WO1 in the PRARNG, and executed an oath of office. c.On 26 September 2013, Orders Number 269-739, issued by the Joint ForcesHeadquarters (JFHQ), San Juan, PR, honorably discharged the applicant from the PRARNG, effective on 23 September 2013, to accept appointment as a warrant officer. d.From 20 April 2014 – 16 July 2014, the applicant attended and completed theUnit Maintenance Officer Basic Course. e.The applicant’s records are void of any orders extending Federal Recognition tohim in the rank of WO1. His record also contains duplicates of the documents identified previously in the record of proceedings, and in which the applicant provides. f.On 16 June 2017, DA Form 71 (Oath of Office Military Personnel) was completedappointing the applicant as a Reserve warrant officer in the rank of WO1. g.On 16 November 2017, SO Number 244, issued by the NGB, extended FederalRecognition to the applicant in the rank of WO1 with an effective DOR of 16 June 2017. 4.The applicant provides; a.Warrant Officer Candidate School Certificate showing the applicant completedthe Reserve Component Warrant Officer Candidate School. b.Orders Number 317-535, issued by the JFHQ, San Juan, revoked OrdersNumber 269-741 (not provided or in the applicant’s official records) pertaining to the applicant’s appointment as a WO1. c.DD Form 214 showing the applicant was honorably released from active dutytraining having attended the Warrant Officer Basic Course. d.Memorandum, Subject: Request for ETP to Grant Extension Temporary FederalRecognition, wherein a PRARNG official requested an ETP for the applicant to the NGB due to the applicant’s initial appointment being expired due to a fault in the system. The Officer Personnel Branch did not process and forward the applicant’s initial packet properly, which caused a delay in promotion to CW2. e.NGB Form 89 showing the form was completed again finding the applicant metthe physical, moral, and general qualifications for appointment. f.Memorandum, Subject: Recommendation for Initial Appointment for the applicant,wherein the Senior Army Advisor for the PRARNG approved the applicant’s Federal Recognition board proceedings. g.DD Form 2808 showing the applicant completed the medical examinationrequired for commissioning in the ARNG. h.NGB Form 62E showing the form was completed for Federal Recognition as aWO1. i.NGB Form 337 wherein the applicant affirmed his oath to defend the Constitutionof the U.S. Department of Defense j.Memorandum, Subject: Certificate of Clearance/Security Determination wherein aPRARNG official confirmed the applicant had an active security clearance. k.Case tracking worksheet showing the processing of the applicant’s currentapplication for Federal Recognition. 5.On 5 March 2020, the NGB reviewed the applicant's records and rendered anadvisory opinion in his case. After a thorough review, the Chief, Special Actions Branchopined that: a.Based on records in the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), hewas initially appointed as a WO1 on 24 September 2013. He completed the Warrant Officer Candidate School on 21 September 2013 and Warrant Officer Basic Course (WOBC) in July 2014. Multiple records show that he was recognized by the State as a WO1 to include: State board proceedings, appointment orders, evaluations etc. Despite this, there was no Federal Recognition extended to him for approximately two years after his completion of WOBC. He contends that an error at G-1 was the cause of the delay, and that the State initiated another initial appointment packet in 2016. This contention is supported by duplicate documents in his OMPF. There does not appear to be any instances that would warrant a delay of his Federal Recognition process. b.The delay also negatively impacted the applicant’s consideration for promotion. Based on the guidance outlined in the National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-101 (Warrant Officers Federal Recognition and Related Personnel Actions), WO1 are eligible for promotion to CW2 at two years in the lower grade. However, due to the State having to resubmit his initial appointment packet he was not eligible for consideration for promotion to CW2. The lack of efficient processing of his initial packet for almost two years is a clear injustice against him. c.It is the recommendation of their office that the applicant’s request should be approved. Based on the significant amount of documentation in his OMPF, it is clear he was appointed as a warrant officer in the PRARNG in 2013. There is no record of submission of his Federal Recognition packet to the NGB until 2016 which is two years past his appointment date. It is also evident that he was unjustly denied the opportunity to be considered for promotion on time. Therefore, it is recommended that his DOR be adjusted to the date of his original appointment (24 September 2013, it is also recommended his record is reviewed by a special selection board to address the delayed promotion to CW2. Furthermore, it is recommended that he receive any back-pay due to him in connection with possible adjustments of DOR and promotions. d.A copy of the complete advisory opinion has been provided to the Board for theirreview and consideration. 6.The applicant was provided with a copy of this advisory opinion to give him anopportunity to respond and/or submit a rebuttal. He did not respond. 7.NGR 600-101 states in: a.Paragraph 2-2; Federal Recognition is the process that ensures officersappointed by individual States meet the qualifications required for service in the Federal Armed Forces. Prior to extending Federal Recognition, the President of the U.S. (POTUS), or the Secretary of Defense acting on behalf of the POTUS, must first approve the Reserve warrant officer of the Army appointment. When the State appointment is federally recognized, an ARNG warrant officer is concurrently appointed as a Reserve warrant officer of the Army. b.Paragraph 2-3; temporary Federal Recognition may be extended to an officerwho has been found qualified by a Federal Recognition Board (FRB) for appointment in the ARNG of a State pending receipt of permanent Federal Recognition and appointment as a Reserve officer of the Army. Temporary Federal Recognition will automatically terminate one-year after the effective date of the State appointment per Title 32 USC, section 308 (Federal Recognition of Officers: temporary recognition) unless sooner withdrawn or if official orders are issued. c.Paragraph 2-4; the effective date of Federal Recognition is the date the warrantofficer executes the oath of office on NGB Form 337. Federal Recognition remains in effect, as long as the warrant officer continues to meet the requirements of the grade and position or until such recognition is withdrawn based on requirements set forth in regulations or as otherwise required by law. d.Paragraph 3-3; (Actions required by the office of the State G-1 on behalf of TheAdjutant General): .review applications for completeness and accuracy .qualifications and standards for the requested personnel action .confirmation of security requirements .attach NGB 337 and DA 71 (the effective date should be the effective date ofthe officers appointment) .the endorsed application (NGB Form 62 with additional papers prescribed bythis chapter) will be forwarded to ARNG-HRP for permanent FederalRecognition action e.Table 7-1 states minimum time in grade for promotion from WO1 to CW2 is twoyears in the lower grade. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application, the supporting documents, the records, applicable regulations, the NGB advisory and the facts above, the Board found that relief is warranted as recommended in the Board Determination and Recommendation below. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 :XX :XXX :XXX 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 showing that his date of rank for Warrant Officer One (WO1) is 11 April 2013. 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. REFERENCES: 1.Title 10 USC, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of militaryrecords must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. Thisprovision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely filewithin the 3 year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in theinterest of justice to do so. 2.NGR 600-101 (Warrant Officers Federal Recognition and Related PersonnelActions) states in: a.Paragraph 2-2; Federal Recognition is the process that ensures officersappointed by individual States meet the qualifications required for service in the Federal Armed Forces. Prior to extending Federal Recognition, the POTUS, or the Secretary of Defense acting on behalf of the POTUS, must first approve the Reserve warrant officer of the Army appointment. When the State appointment is federally recognized, an ARNG warrant officer is concurrently appointed as a Reserve warrant officer of the Army. b.Paragraph 2-3; temporary Federal Recognition may be extended to an officerwho has been found qualified by an FRB for appointment in the ARNG of a State pending receipt of permanent Federal Recognition and appointment as a Reserve officer of the Army. Temporary Federal Recognition will automatically terminate one-year after the effective date of the State appointment per Title 32 USC, section 308 (Federal Recognition of Officers: temporary recognition) unless sooner withdrawn or if official orders are issued. c.Paragraph 2-4; the effective date of Federal Recognition is the date the warrantofficer executes the oath of office on NGB Form 337. Federal Recognition remains in effect, as long as the warrant officer continues to meet the requirements of the grade and position or until such recognition is withdrawn based on requirements set forth in regulations or as otherwise required by law. d.Paragraph 3-3; (Actions required by the office of the State G-1 on behalf of TheAdjutant General): .review applications for completeness and accuracy .qualifications and standards for the requested personnel action .confirmation of security requirements .attach NGB 337 and DA 71 (the effective date should be the effective date ofthe officers appointment) . the endorsed application (NGB Form 62 with additional papers prescribed by this chapter) will be forwarded to ARNG-HRP for permanent Federal Recognition action e. Table 7-1 states minimum tine in grade for promotion from WO1 to CW2 is two years in the lower grade. //NOTHING FOLLOWS//