Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10232-06
Original file (10232-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


                                             


                                             Docket No: 10232-06
                                                                                  17 January 2008
From:    Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To:      Secretary of the Navy

Subj:    REVIEW FORMER OF NAVAL RECORD

Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552
                  
                  Encl:   (1)      Case Summary
(2)               Subject’s of Naval Record


1.       Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner applied to this Board requesting his naval record be corrected by changing the reentry code and reason for discharge he was assigned on 21 March 2006.
2.       The Board, consisting of Ms. Prevatt and Messrs. Blanchard and Bourgeois, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 28 November 2007 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
3.       The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice, finds as follows:
a.       Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy.

b.       On 10 March 2004 Petitioner reenlisted in the Navy after more than four years of prior active service. He was dropped from imagery C school on 17 June 2004 for “legal reasons” which are not shown in the available records. As he could no longer perform the duties of an intelligence specialist due to the loss of his security clearance, he was reassigned to a holding company at Navy and Marine Corps Intelligence Training Center, Dam Neck,, Virginia. On 9 February 2006 he was ordered to report to HM “A” school for training, and required to obligate service (OBLISERVE) to February 2010. He was advised that failure to OBLISERVE could result in his administrative separation from the naval service. On 9 February 2006, after being advised of the orders and the possible consequences of failing to OBLISER V E, he stated in writing that he did not wish to OBLISERVE.
c.       On 6 April 2006 Petitioner’s commanding officer
 recommended that he be separated from the Navy with an honorable discharge by reason of unsatisfactory performance based on the revocation of his security clearance, which precluded him from performing the duties of an IS2. When informed of this recommendation and his rights in connection therewith, Petitioner waived his right to counsel and an administrative separation board. After review by the discharge authority, the recommendation for separation was approved and on 21 March 2006 Petitioner was separated with an honorable discharge by reason of unsatisfactory performance and assigned a reentry code of RE-4.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the Board concludes that Petitioner was properly discharged from the Navy; however, it believes that he deserves a second chance and should not be denied further service in some other component of the armed forces. Accordingly, the Board recommends, as an exception to policy, that his reentry code be changed to RE-l.

RECONMENDATION:
a.       That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that on 21 March 2006, he was assigned a reentry code of RE-i.
b.       That a copy of this Report of Proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record.

c.       That no further relief be granted.
4.       It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board’s review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board’s proceedings in the above entitled matter.

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN         JAME S R. EXNI C IOS
Recorder         Ac ting Recorder
5.       Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section
 6(e) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of
 Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(e))
and having assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby
announced that the foregoing corrective action, taken under the authority of reference (a), has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.



         W. DEAN PFEIFFER
                                                                         Executive Director
                                                                                

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2452 13

    Original file (NR2452 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The advisory recommended that his RE-4 reentry code not be changed in light of the loss of his security clearance. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by , ‘changing block 26 (Separation Code) of his DD Form 214 from “HHI” to “JBK”, and that biock 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) be changed from “Unsatisfactory Performance” to - *Completion...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06253-10

    Original file (06253-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BAN Docket No. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pfeiffer, Zsalman, and Exnicios, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 7 February 2011 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Moreover, because the March 2008 E-5 advancement exam cycle had a 100% advancement rate,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03866-11

    Original file (03866-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    f. In September 2010, Petitioner participated in the E-5/A02 advancement exam again. g. Upon being notified of the deficiency in her clearance status, in February 2011, Petitioner re-submitted the required security questionnaire documents to obtain the required security clearance. She had advanced from E-1 to E-4.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 10656 11

    Original file (10656 11.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Under BUPERINST 1430.16F, (Advancement Manual for Enlisted Personnel of the U.S. Navy and U.S. Navy Reserve), all personnel designated in certain ratings, including Petitioner’s rating, “must maintain, as a minimum, continuous security clearance eligibility.” This provision has been interpreted by NPC to mean that, in order to be eligible to participate in an advancement cycle, take an advancement exam or advance to the next highest grade, a Sailor in one of the designated ratings must hold...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 06139-11

    Original file (06139-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    es Upon being notified of the deficiency in his clearance status, in late May 2010, Petitioner re-submitted the required security questionnaire documents to obtain the required security clearance. * 1. Review of Petitioner's last Worksheet, (enclosure 4) for the March 2010 exam also fails to disclose any evidence that Petitioner was notified or aware of the requirement to hold a security clearance in order to participate in the advancement cycle. c. If the PNA points from the re-validated...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00712-11

    Original file (00712-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pfeiffer, Zsalman, and George reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 3 October 2011 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. g. Upon being notified of the deficiency in his clearance status in December 2010, Petitioner re-submitted the required security questionnaire documents to obtain the required security clearance. He had advanced...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 02514-11

    Original file (02514-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a) Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected to validate his September 2010 cycle 208, Navy-wide advancement examination and show that he met the criteria to be advanced to E-4/A03. Additionally, under the BUPERSINST 1430.16F (Navy Advancement Manual), members in those ratings who do not have a continuous security clearance eligibility are not authorized to compete for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 02515-11

    Original file (02515-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a) Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected to validate his September 2010 cycle 208, Navy-wide advancement examination and show that he met the criteria to be advanced to E-4/A03. The Board determined the following: The following factors militated in favor of relief: The Board was convinced that Petitioner and the Navy were unaware of any deficiencies in his clearance status...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 11272 11

    Original file (11272 11.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    g. In March 2011, after being notified of the deficiency in his clearance status, Petitioner re-submitted the required security questionnaire documents to obtain the required security clearance. He had never been held back in any way from progressing through his Navy career due to security clearance issues and he was not aware that there was a deficiency that would disqualify him from competing for advancement. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 06780-11

    Original file (06780-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    g. In September 2010, Petitioner again participated in the E6/AZ1 advancement exam. Apparently, neither Petitioner, her command, nor NPC were aware that she was ineligible to participate in the exam cycles. Therefore, the Board concludes that the record should be corrected to validate Petitioner’s E-6/AZ1 advancement examinations from the relevant cycles and Petitioner should be advanced from the September 2010 exam cycle.