"DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
- BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BAN
Docket No. 09713-0608
14 October 20093
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy
Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD ICO
Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552
Enel: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments —
(2) NPC memo 1430 Ser 811/514 of 24 Jui 09
(3) Email between Siem US Naval Academy and
= mee BCNR dtd 5 Nov 08
(4) NAVPERS 1070/621 of 8 Oct 08
(5) Naval Information Operations Command memo 1500 Ser NO0/560
of 18 Jun 09
(6) NAVPERS 1616/26 of 2 Jul 09
(7) Service Record
1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a) Subject, hereinafter
referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board
requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected
to show advancement to E-5/CTI2 from the March 2007, Navy-wide
advancement exam, Cycle 195,
2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pfeiffer, Zsalman, and George,
reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on
28 September 2009 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that
the partial 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. The Board also considered an
advisory opinion furnished by the Naval Personnel Command (NPC)
attached as enclosure (2) that recommended no relief be granted.
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 ail
administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations
within the Department of the Navy.
b. Petitioner participated in the March 2007, Navy-wide
advancement exam for E-5/CTI2. She was selected for advancement with
an effective date of 16 September 2007, enclosure (1). However, on 26
June 2007, Petitioner was discharged from the Navy as an B-4, (before
her effective date of advancement), and was appointed as a midshipman
Docket No. 09713-08
to the United States Naval Academy. On 2 June 2008, Petitioner was
subsequently discharged from the Naval Academy for voluntary reasons -
and not due to any academic or legal issues, enclosure (3). On 5
September 2008, she reverted to her enlisted status to complete the
remaining term of her initial contract. On 5 September 2008, she
voluntarily extended to incur sufficient obligated service to accept
orders, enclosure (4).
c. On 7 October 2008, Petitioner submitted a request to the
Board for Corrections of’ Naval Records, requesting to be advanced
retroactively to E-5/CTI2 from the March 2007, advancement exam.
Petitioner claims that since she was “frocked” as an E-5, she should
be allowed to be advanced to E-5. Her commanding officer favorably
endorsed her request, enclosure (S).
d. In an advisory opinion, enclosure (2), NPC recommended that
no relief be granted. Their recommendation is based on Chief of Naval
Operations Instruction 1420.1, which states “former fleet Sailors that
disenroll from the Naval Academy or NAPS for reasons other than
acceptance of a commission or a physical disability will revert to the
enlisted status held immediately prior to entry into the Naval
Academy/NAPS”. Petitioner was never advanced to E-5. She was in a
selectee status and only “frocked” to E-5. Being “frocked” is a
privilege, not a right, given by the commanding officer to allow the
service member to wear the rank to which they are to be advanced
before actually being paid. In Petitioner’s case, she was scheduled
to be advanced 16 September 2007, but was discharged to accept an
appointment before actually being advanced.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of the record, the
Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants partial favorable
action. The Board finds that although Petitioner was not actually
advanced to E-5/CTI2, but only “frocked” to an E-5, she was still
continuously affiliated with the naval service by attending the Naval
Academy. The Board determined that Petitioner would have been
advanced if not for the Naval Academy. The Board believed that
withholding an advancement in such a case might create a disincentive
for qualified Sailors who are already selected for advancement (but
not yet actually advanced) from accepting Naval Academy appointments.
The Board noted that her service has been exemplary, enclosure (6).
Therefore, the Board believed that as a matter of fairness, Petitioner
should be advanced to E-5/CTI2, effective the date she signed her new
extension contract on 5 September 2008.
RECOMMENDATION :
That Petitioner's naval record be corrected, where appropriate, to
show that:
Docket No. 09713-08
a. Petitioner was advanced to E-5/CTI2 from the date of her new
extension contract date of 5 September 2008.
4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the Board
for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations,
Section 723.6(c)) it is certified that 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 WILLIAM J. HESS, III
Recorder Acting Recorder
5. The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review
and action.
Reviewed and approved:
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06030-09
06030-09 n. On 30 May 2008, two days after failing the BCA portion of the PFA, Petitioner received another medical waiver. On 5 June 2009, Petitioner filed enclosure 1 with this Board requesting that the applicable naval record be corrected to show advancement to E-6/AT1 from the March 2008, Navy-wide advancement exam, Cycle 199. w. By enclosure 3, Petitioner's command has commented that no relief is warranted for the following reasons: Petitioner was not within BCA standards and did not...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06253-10
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 | CY2009 | 05064-09
The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pfeiffer, Zsalman, and George, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 28 September 2009 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. However, because the command failed to submit a message withdrawing his recommendation to NPC and NETPDTC, prior to his advancement date, the Petitioner started to receive E-5 pay effective 16 August 2008,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3279 14
Soe, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY RES 2 cae i BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S, COURTHOUSE RD SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON VA 22204-2490 BAN Docket No.NPR03279-14 17 December 2014 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: [REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD 1CO
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03866-11
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 | 06079-11
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BAN Docket No. 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 her E-6/YN1 Navy-wide advancement examinations and show that that her E-6/YN1 examinations from September 2008 through September 2010 be validated and receive PNA points to be applied to her March 2011 exam. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 06780-11
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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 02523-11
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 her September 2010 cycle 208, Navy-wide advancement examination and show that she met the criteria to be advanced to E-5/A0Q2. Security clearance is understood to 2 Docket No. The Board determined the following: The following factors militated in favor of relief: The Board was convinced that Petitioner and the Navy were...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 12258-08
The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pfeiffer, Zsalman, and George, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 11 May 2009 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. They reason that although the command erred in allowing Petitioner to take the September 2007, Navy-wide advancement exam for I1T3, Petitioner was not eligible to take the exam per BUPERINST 1430.16F which states that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10433-08
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 George, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 16 March 2009 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section 6(e) of the revised Procedures of the...