DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BAN
Docket No. 01176-0939
13 July 2009
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy
Subj]: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD 1Co =a
Ref: {a} Title 10 U.S.C. 1552
Encl: (1) BD Form 149 w/attachments
(2) Bureau of Naval Personnel memo 1430 Ser 811/347 of
29 May 09
(3) Commanding Officer, Helicopter Antisubmarine Squadron
ELEVEN ltr of 9 Jul 09
{4) 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/A03 from the September 2008, Navy-wide
advancement exam, Cycle 200.
2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pfeiffer, Exnicios, and George,
reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on
29 June 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 also 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.
. b. Prior to the September 2008, Navy-wide advancement exam,
Petitioner was a striker for the Aviation Ordnance {AO) rating. His
command advised him that in order to qualify to strike for the AO
rating and advance to E-4, he had to complete all the pre-requisite AO
courses. 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. Petitioner scored a 146.79, which
was above the minimum multiple required to advance (the minimum score
Docket No. 01176-09
required to pass and advance was 146.10). However, Navy Education and
Training Center {(NETPDTC) invalidated the exam because the Petitioner
had not received pre-approval from his Enlisted Community Manager
(RCM) to participate in the examination. The command was unaware that
Petitioner was required to hold a final security clearance and be pre-
approved by the ECM in order to convert to the AO rating and
participate in the exam cycle. Therefore, because the ECM for the AO
rating was never contacted for rate conversion approval, Petitioner's
exam was invalidated.
c. In January 2009, Petitioner received his final clearance
authorization. In March 2009, Petitioner's command meritoriously
advanced Petitioner to AO3 due to sustained superior performance. 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. Petitioner believed it was through no fault
of his-own that the original exam was invalidated because his command
failed to give him accurate guidance. The Petitioner's current
commanding officer submitted a favorable endorsement letter supporting
the retroactive advancement, (enclosure (3)).
d. In an advisory opinion, enclosure (2), the Bureau of Naval
Personnel (BUPERS) recommends that no relief be granted. They reason
that although the command erred in allowing Petitioner to take the
September 2008, Navy-wide advancement exam for AO3, Petitioner was not
eligible to take the exam since the ECM did not approve the request.
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/A03 in September
2008, his command erred in advising him that he was eligible and then
allowed him to take the AO3 exam. In addition, the Board notes that
Petitioner did finally received authorization from the ECM and has his
commanding officer's recommendation, supporting Petitioner's request
for advancement from the September 2008, exam cycle. Accordingly, the
Board concludes that the record should be corrected to show that
Petitioner was advanced to E-4/A03 from the September 2008, Navy-wide
advancement exam, with an effective date of 16 December 2008.
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 ‘ 1
Navy-wide advancement exam, with an effective date of 16 December
Docket No. 01176-09
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, IIT
Recorder Acting Recorder
5. The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review
and action.
Executive Di
Reviewed and approved:
Qaas. CS.
\- SO-OR
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 02515-11
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 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 | 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 | 02514-11
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 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 | 11272 11
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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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...