IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 March 2022 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20210009874 APPLICANT REQUESTS: correction of his date of rank (DOR) of Chief Warrant Officer three (CW3) to 11 December 2017. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Memorandum, Subject: Promotion as a Reserve Commissioned Warrant Officer (WO) of the Army, dated 19 September 2011 * DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) for the period of 5 January 2015 thru 9 February 2015 * DA Form 67-10-1 (Company Grade Plate Officer Evaluation Report) for the period of 28 October 2014 thru 27 October 2015 * Memorandum, Subject: Recommendation for Promotion Exception to Policy (ETP) [Applicant], dated 1 October 2016 * DA Form 67-10-1 for the period of 28 October 2015 thru 25 October 2016 * DA Form 67-10-1 for the period of 27 October 2016 thru 5 May 2017 * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending on 23 May 2017 * DA Form 67-10-1 for the period of 5 May 2017 thru 5 May 2018 * Orders 143-509, issued by Joint Force Headquarters Alabama National Guard, dated 23 May 2018 * Orders 150-507, issued by Joint Force Headquarters Alabama National Guard, dated 30 May 2018 * DA Form 67-10-1 for the period of 6 May 2018 thru 5 May 2019 * Orders 200-529, issued by Joint Force Headquarters Alabama National Guard, dated 19 July 2018 * Special Orders Number 263, dated 24 September 2019 FACTS: 1. The applicant states: a. He was eligible for promotion from CW2 to CW3 four years from 13 September 2011. He was not State promoted until 19 July 2018. His federal promotion was not until 5 September 2019. He is Tactical Operations (TAC OPS) qualified and regulation allows for promotion from CW2 to CW3 with four years of time in grade (TIG) as opposed to five years as long as his WO advanced course (WOAC) was completed. b. Due to the long wait status of the WOAC, he was not able to receive a class date until 27 November 2016, with a completion date of 11 December 2016. In addition, due to a deployment from 22 July 2016 to 23 May 2017, he was unable to attend the WOAC. c. He put together a packet for an exception for promotion to include a waiver and a memorandum to the Adjutant General dated 1 October 2016. However, no action was replied. Upon returning to home station, he was not able to get another class date for WOAC and he would have completed on 22 September 2017. However, his promotion packet was mishandled and returned several times, once because his duty assignment changed, although he notes that his duty assignment does not affect promotion. d. His State promotion finally came through on 19 July 2018, and his Federal Recognition Orders were published on 5 September 2019. e. He is requesting a DOR correction for 12 months after the completion of the original WOAC, dated of 11 December 2016, which is 11 December 2017, or any date deemed fair by the Board. f. It is his position that the National Guard WO promotions were, at the time, unfair compared to active duty WO, which has since been corrected for future National Guard WOs. He feels that his particular promotion was hindered by his deployment, in addition to the extremely long wait time for the WOAC classes and the mishandling of his promotion packet by the State and units of which none of it was his fault. 2. The applicant provides: a. Memorandum, Subject: Promotion as a Reserve Commissioned WO of the Army, dated 19 September 2011, shows he was promoted in the Army National Guard (ARNG), effective 13 September 2011, in the rank of CW2. b. DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) for the period of 5 January 2015 thru 9 February 2015, reflects he achieved course standards for the TAC OPS course. c. DA Form 67-10-1 (Company Grade Plate Officer Evaluation Report) for the period of 28 October 2014 thru 27 October 2015, shows he passed the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) and was rated highly qualified. d. Memorandum, Subject: Recommendation for Promotion ETP [Applicant], issued by the Alabama Joint Force Headquarters, dated 1 October 2016, shows the applicant’s command recommended an ETP for the requirement to complete the WOAC prior to the applicant’s promotion to CW3. e. DA Form 67-10-1 for the period of 28 October 2015 thru 25 October 2016, shows he passed the APFT and was rated as most qualified. f. DA Form 67-10-1 for the period of 27 October 2016 thru 5 May 2017, shows he passed the APFT and was rated as most qualified. g. DA Form 67-10-1 for the period of 5 May 2017 thru 5 May 2018, shows he passed the APFT and was rated as highly qualified. h. Orders 143-509, issued by Joint Force Headquarters Alabama National Guard, dated 23 May 2018, shows he was relieved as the TAC OPS officer and reassigned as the Aviation Maintenance Officer, effective 22 May 2018. i. Orders 150-507, issued by Joint Force Headquarters Alabama National Guard, dated 30 May 2018, shows he was relieved as the Aviation Maintenance Officer and reassigned as the TAC OPS officer, effective 30 May 2018. j. DA Form 67-10-1 for the period of 6 May 2018 thru 5 May 2019, shows he passed the APFT and was rated as highly qualified. k. Orders 200-529, issued by Joint Force Headquarters Alabama National Guard, dated 19 July 2018, shows he was promoted to the rank of CW3, effective 19 July 2018. 3. A review of the applicant's official record shows: a. National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service), shows he was honorably released from the ARNG to accept an appointment as a commissioned or WO on 4 June 2009. He completed 10 years, 6 months, and 1 day of net service this period. b. Special Orders Number 146, dated 12 June 2009, shows he received his initial appointment as a WO1, effective 5 June 2009. c. Special Orders Number 226, dated 19 September 2011, shows he was promoted to CW2, effective 13 September 2011. d. DD Form 214 shows he was honorably released from active duty due to the completion of active service on 23 May 2017. He completed 10 months and 2 days of net active service this period. He deployed to Kuwait and to Iraq. e. DA Form 1059 for the period of 19 September 2018 thru 31 October 2018, shows he achieved course standards for UH-60A/L MTP course. f. DA Form 1059 for the period of 5 March 2019 thru 17 April 2019, shows he achieved course standards for the Aviation Maintenance Officer Course. g. Special Orders Number 263, dated 24 September 2019, shows he was promoted in the ARNG to the rank of CW3, with a DOR of 5 September 2019. 4. On 16 February 2022, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Alabama ARNG, which states: a. “[Applicant’s] DOR for CW2 was 13 September 2011. Promotion to CW3 requires completion of the WOAC. The maximum TIG as CW2 for the WO Education System (WOES) is 5-years with States retaining the authority to waive this enrollment period. b. Upon review of the Army Training Requirements and Resource System (ATRRS), I find that [applicant] did have a reserved seat with a report date of 27 November 2016, school code 011. The training seat was originally submitted 1 February 2016. There are no prior reservations for WOAC depicted in ATRRS. [Applicant] was subsequently scheduled for deployment in July 2016, and withdrew from the course. I have no evidence that the WOAC seat was requested prior to this timeframe. In accordance with NGR 600-101, for promotion to CW3, WOAC must be completed between 2-years minimum/5-years maximum TIG as CW2. There are no records showing that [applicant] actually applied for his required PME course prior to the 1 February 2016 submission for a course that actually would have started outside the 5-year required window. c. [His] application for the military records correction contains a template memo for an ETP that would have allowed him to be promoted prior to completing the WOAC requirement if it was approved. However, I find no evidence that this memorandum ever made it this level for consideration and/or approval. This memorandum is not signed nor does it have Direct Reporting Unit (DRU) Commander’s routing/concurrence signatures annotated. d. Request this case continue with processing through the ABCMR board as I do not have sufficient documentation to justify backdating [his] DOR.” 5. On 18 February 2022, the applicant was provided with a copy of the advisory opinion for the opportunity to respond. He has not responded. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that partial relief was not warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant's record of service, documents submitted in support of the petition and executed a comprehensive and standard review based on law, policy and regulation. Upon review of the applicant’s petition, available military records, and NGB, Chief Special Actions Branch advisory, the Board concurred with the advising official finding the Alabama Army National Guard (ALARNG) did not recommend the Soldier for a unit vacancy promotion until 19 July 2018. The origin of the processing delays is unknown; however, it can be verified that the Soldier’s packet was ultimately assigned to scroll U12-19 on 19 May 2019, nearly one year after receiving the state promotion. 2. The Board determined based on the average processing times and the submission of the applicant’s unit vacancy promotion on 19 July 2018, as a matter of equity it is the recommendation that the date of rank (DOR) and effective date of promotion to be adjusted to 19 January 2019. The Board agreed the applicant’s adjusted DOR would be the date of scroll U12-18 which was the first available scroll submitted after the Soldier’s state promotion order was published and could have been routed to the Army National Guard Federal Recognition Section for scroll assignment. Based on this, the Board granted partial relief. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF X X X GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION ? 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 adjusted to show his DOR to CW3 as 19 January 2019. Recommend DFAS–IN determined exact arrears payment. 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 correction of the applicant’s date of rank (DOR) of Chief Warrant Officer three (CW3) to 11 December 2017. 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. NGB 600-101 (WO Federal Recognition and Related Personnel Actions) states, WOAC previously known as the Senior WO Training (SWOT) Course. This training provides additional training for WOs serving at company and battalion levels. Until on or about 1 October 1998, the WOAC is the only ARNG requirement for promotion to the grades of CWO, W3 and W4. WOAC training provides additional MOS training for WOs serving at the company and battalion level. a. Chapter 7-1 (Promotions): Responsibility. The promotion of WO in the ARNG is a function of the State. As in original appointments, a WO promoted by State authority has a State status in which to function in the higher grade. However, to be extended Federal Recognition in the higher grade the officer must satisfy the requirements prescribed herein and the President of the United States (POTUS), or the Secretary of Defense acting on behalf of the POTUS, must first approve the promotion as a Reserve WO of the Army. When the State promotion is Federally recognized, the ARNG WO is concurrently promoted as a Reserve WO of the Army. b. Chapter 7-8 (Minimum Years of Promotion Service). To attain eligibility for promotion and receive Federal Recognition in the higher grade, a WO must complete the minimum years of promotion service as shown in table 7-1. 2. Title 10, USC, section 579 provides: a. The name of a WO recommended for promotion by a selection board convened under this chapter may be removed from the report of the selection board by the President. b. The Secretary concerned may remove the name of a WO who is on a promotion list as a result of being recommended for promotion by a selection board convened under this chapter at any time before the promotion is effective. c. An officer whose name is removed from the list of officers recommended for promotion by a selection board continues to be eligible for consideration for promotion. d. If the next selection board that considers the WO for promotion under this chapter selects the WO for promotion and the WO is promoted, the Secretary concerned may, upon his promotion, grant him the same effective date for pay and allowances and the same date of rank, and the same position on the WO active-duty list as the WO would have had if his name had not been so removed. e. If the next selection board does not select the WO for promotion, or if his name is again removed under subsection (a) from the list of officers recommended for promotion by the selection board or under subsection (b) from the WO promotion list, he shall be treated for all purposes as if he has twice failed of selection for promotion. 3. Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions), in effect at the time provides: a. Paragraph 1-20 (Delay of promotion) (1) The promotion of any officer who is in a nonpromotable status is automatically delayed. DA Form 268 will be imposed during the delay. The office preparing the DA Form 268 must give that officer written notice of the reason for the delay of promotion before its imposition or as soon thereafter as possible (AR 600-8-2). If a DA Form 268 is in effect at the time an officer's name is announced on a promotion list, the officer's commander will immediately notify him or her of the reason for the delay. If this is impractical, written notice will be given as soon as possible. An officer whose promotion has been delayed may make a written statement, expeditiously forwarded through the chain of command, to the Secretary of the Army (Commander, Army Human Resources Command (HRC)). (2) Delays under this provision will be resolved within 6 months of the date the officer would have been promoted. An officer's promotion will not be delayed more than 6 months unless the SA or the Secretary's designee grants a further delay. The CG, HRC, will monitor cases involving delay and designate an authority to grant a further period of delay in cases involving nonpromotable overweight officers and in extraordinary cases. Additionally, a "further period of delay" is deemed to have been granted in any case that has been referred to a promotion review board; the delay in such cases extends until the SA takes final action. In no case may an officer's promotion be delayed more than 90 days after final action in any court martial or criminal case against the officer in Federal or State court, or more than 18 months after the date on which the officer would otherwise have been appointed, whichever is later. (3) If within 6 months after the effective date of promotion, new information results in a determination by HQDA that an officer was, on the effective date of the promotion, in a nonpromotable status, that promotion will be deemed to have been automatically delayed. In such a case, the officer's promotion is void and the order announcing the promotion will be revoked. The officer must be immediately notified of this fact. Also, immediate steps will be taken to resolve the case or seek further delay. However, if the determination is made more than 6 months after the effective date of the promotion, the officer will be deemed to have been in a promotable status on the effective date of the promotion and treated as though the delay had not been imposed. b. Paragraph 1-21 (DOR and effective date of promotion after a delay) states when a delay in promotion is ended, the promotion approval authority will determine if the officer was in fact unqualified (as opposed to ineligible, as described in para 1–10) for promotion during all or part of the delay and will adjust them DOR and effective date of promotion accordingly. When an officer’s promotion suspension is ended favorably and he or she is exonerated of any wrongdoing, or a determination is otherwise made that the officer was qualified for promotion during the entire period of delay, the officer will be promoted with the Active DOR (ADOR), effective date (for pay and allowances), and position on the active duty list he or she would have received had there been no delay. However, the ADOR and effective date will be adjusted if promotion was delayed because of disciplinary action resulting in a Memorandum of Reprimand, regardless of filing disposition; then the ADOR and effective date will be the day after the reprimand was actually imposed or directed to be filed in the OMPF. c. Chapter 8 (Promotion Review Boards) paragraph 8-1 provides: (1) Before the selection board report is approved by the President or his designee, the name of an officer in a grade above second lieutenant, recommended for promotion by a selection board, may be removed from the report of the board only by the President. Before the report of a warrant officer selection board has been approved by the Secretary of the Army, the name of a warrant officer recommended by a selection board may be removed from the board report by the President or his designee (Title 10, USC, section 579(d)). A report of a selection board exists after a promotion board issues a signed board report. The board report becomes a promotion list after approval by the President or his designee, or in the case of warrant officers, after approval by the Secretary of the Army. If the Secretary of the Army recommends removal of the name of an officer from a selection board's report and the recommendation includes information that was not presented to the selection board, the information will be made available to the officer. The officer will be afforded a reasonable opportunity to submit comments on that information to the officials making the recommendation and the officials reviewing the recommendation. If the officer cannot be given access to the information for reasons of national security, the officer will, to the maximum extent practicable, be provided with an appropriate summary of the information. An officer who has been provided with 14 days from the date of receipt of such information to submit comments is considered to have been provided a reasonable opportunity, unless good cause is shown. Proof of service will be included in the file. The remainder of this paragraph that deals with promotion review boards (PRB) is not applicable to Secretarial recommendations to remove the name of an officer from a report of a selection board. (2) The Secretary of the Army may also remove the name of a WO who is on a promotion list (Title 10, USC, section 579(b)). PRB are used to advise the Secretary of the Army in any case in which there is cause to believe that a commissioned or WO on a promotion list is mentally, physically, morally, or professionally unqualified or unsuited to perform the duties of the grade for which he or she was selected for promotion. In such instances, a PRB may also be conducted when an officer's name appears on a report of a selection board, although the Secretary's final decision or recommendation under paragraph 8-8, below, may not be made until the report is approved by the President or his authorized designee. A warrant officer is considered to be on a promotion list when the officer's name appears on a report of a promotion selection board which has been approved by the Secretary of the Army (Title 10, USC, section 578(a)). d. Chapter 8-4 (Referral and convening authority) provides a PRB will normally convene within 120 days after HQDA directs that a case be reviewed. The Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1 or a designee (normally the Director of Military Personnel Management) is authorized to refer cases to a PRB except those involving promotion to or within general officer grades. The board is convened by the Commanding General, HRC, under authority of a standing memorandum of instruction (MOI) approved by the SA. The referral authority may not be delegated below the Director of Military Personnel Management in cases where a PRB recommendation is based solely on derogatory information received by HQDA, but not filed in the OMPF, that has been substantiated, is relevant, and might reasonably and materially affect a promotion recommendation. e. Chapter 8-9 (Notification of Results) – Officers considered by a PRB will be informed of the results, in writing, through their chain of command. Notice will be sent after appropriate authority takes final action on the PRB's recommendation. Barring extenuating circumstances, this notice should be sent within 180 days after HQDA determines that such consideration should occur. //NOTHING FOLLOWS/ ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20210009874 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1