DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON BC 20370-5100
BAN
Docket No. 12258-08
15 May 2009
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD ICO 4
Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552
Enel; (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments
(2) Bureau of Naval Personnel memo 1430 Ser 811/079 of 2 Feb 09
(3) Commanding Officer, Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron
ONE TWO FOUR ltr 5520 Ser 00/062 of 4 May 09
(3) 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-4/IT3 from the September 2007, Navy-wide
advancement exam, Cycle 196.
2. 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. Documentary material considered by the Board
consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes,
regulations and policies. The Board aiso considered an Advisory
Opinion furnished by the Bureau of Naval Personnel 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 all
administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations
within the Department of the Navy.
*
awa DanPELOL,to the September.2007, Navy-wide advancement exam,
Petitioner was a striker for the Information Systems Technician (IT)
rating.. His command advised him that in order to qualify to strike
for the IT rating and advance to E-4, he had to complete ail the pre-
requisite IT courses and qualify in three watch standings. Therefore,
Petitioner completed all of his required courses and watches and then
his command allowed him to participate in the September 2007, Navy-
wide advancement exam for IT3. Petitioner scored a 122.18, which was
Docket No. 12258-08
above the minimum muitipie required to advance (a minimum score
required to pass and advance was 50.00). However, Navy Education and
Training Center (NETPDTC) invalidated the exam because Petitioner had
not attended IT “A” school. Attendance at that school is a
prerequisite to participating in the advancement cycle that was not
previously.made known to Petitioner.
c. Therefore, in September 2008, Petitioner applied and was
accepted into the IT “A” school. He successfully completed the course
in November 2008. In December 2008, Petitioner submitted a request to
the Board for Correction of Naval Records for advancement to
E-4/IT3 retroactive to the September 2067 cycle. Petitioner believed
it was through no fault of his own that the criginal exam was
invalidated since his former command gave him inaccurate guidance.
The Petitioner’s current commanding officer submitted a favorable
endorsement letter supporting the retroactive advancement, (enclosure
(3)).,
dad. In an advisory opinion, enclosure (2), the Bureau of Naval
Personnel (BUPERS) recommended that no relief be granted. 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 in
order to participate for advancement to IT3, the completion of IT “A”
school is required,
CONCLUSION: ,
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of the record, the
Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants favorable action.
The Board finds that although Petitioner was not eligible to
participate in the advancement examination for E-4/IT3 in September
2007, his former command erred in advising him that he was eligible
and then allowed him to take the IT3 exam. In addition, the Board
feels that Petitioner did finally complete the required IT “A” school
in November 2008, and currently has his commanding officer’s
recommendation, supporting Petitioner’s request for advancement from
the September 2007, exam cycle. Accordingly, the Board concludes that
the record showld be corrected to show that Petitioner was advanced to
E-4/1IT3 from the September 2007, Navy-wide advancement exam, with an
effective date,of 16 June 2008.
RECOMMENDATION :”
That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected, where appropriate, to
show that:
a. Petitioner was advanced to E-4/1IT3 from the September 2007,
Navy-wide advancement exam, with an effective date of 16 June 2008.
Docket No. 12258-08
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.
Ret a, Fo
Taw. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
Reviewed and approved: |
re a
Qk. CAL
SAN of
Robert T. Cali -
Assistant General Counsel
lanpqwer and Reserve Affairs)
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01176-09
Therefore, Petitioner completed all of his required COUrses | and then his command allowed him to participate in the September 2008, Navy-wide advancement exam for AO3. In February 2009, Petitioner submitted a request to the Board for Correction of Naval Records for advancement to E-4/A03 retroactive to the September 2008 cycle. RECOMMENDATION : That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected, where appropriate, to show that: a. Petitioner was advanced to E-4/A03 from the September 2008, c ‘...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00712-11
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 | CY2010 | 02859-10
f. In February 2010, Petitioner submitted this request to the Board for Corrections of Naval Records (BCNR) requesting to validate his February 2008 Navy-wide Reserve advancement exam and advancement to E-5/MA2, enclosure (1). * NPC stated that advancement in the MA rating required completion of MA “A” school and that Petitioner did not receive the “A” school waiver until 18 March 2009, after the February 2008 and February 2009 advancement examination cycles. Accordingly, the Board...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 10656 11
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 | 10262 11
The Board, consisting of Messrs. pfeiffer, Zsalman, and George reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 25 June 2012 and, pursuant to 4ts regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be teken on the available evidence of record. 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. VOZ62-12 that Petitioner...
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 | CY2010 | 07085-10
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BAN Docket No. In September 2010, with his final adjudicated clearance, he participated in the E6/AE1 Navy-wide advancement examination and was selected and advanced with an effective date of 16 June 2011. j. Petitioner has applied to this Board seeking to have his E6/AE1 advancement exams validated retroactively for PNA points to apply toward his September 2009 advancement exam. NPC and CNO...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 06139-11
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 | 11652 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 his E-4/MC3 Navy-wide advancement examination and show that he met the criteria to be advanced to E-4/MC3 from the September 2010 advancement cycle. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pfeiffer, Zsalman, and George reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 12 March 2012 and, pursuant to its regulations,...