DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BAN
Docket No. 00082-10
3 May 2010
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy
Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552
Encl: {1) DD Form 149 w/attachments
(2) NPC memo 1430 Ser 811/129 of 12 May 2010
(3) Subject’s naval record
1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a) Subject, hereinafter
referred to ag Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board
requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected
to show that Petitioner was either advanced to E-4/LS3 from the March
2009 Navy-wide advancement exam or received Passed but Not Advanced
(PNA) points from the March 2009 advancement exam cycle.
2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pfeiffer, Zsalman, and Exnicios
reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on
3 May 2010, 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.
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 availabie under existing law and regulations
within the Department of the Navy.
b. In correspondence attached as enclosure (2), the office having
cognizance over the subject matter addressed in Petitioner's application
has commented to the effect that Petitioner's request warrants partial
relief as described below.
CONCLUSION
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and
especially in light of the contents of enclosure (2), the Board finds the
existence of an injustice warranting the following partial corrective
action.
Docket No. 00082-10
RECOMMENDATION:
That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected, where appropriate, as
follows:
a. Petitioner's record is to reflect he received PNA points (.5)
for the March 2009 Navy-wide advancement exam.
b. Petitioner’s request for advancement to E-4/LS3 from the March
2009 or September 2009 Navy-wide advancement exam is denied. A
comparison of his scores from Cycle 204 (Sept 09) to the minimum
multiple required for Cycle 203 (Mar 09) reveals that he would not
have advanced.
c. A copy of this Report of Proceedings will be filed in
Petitioner‘s naval record.
4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the Board
for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federai 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. | soba. 4. LP
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN WILLTAM J. HESS, III
Recorder Acting 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.
3 May 2010 LW
W. DEAN PFET
Executive Di oO
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07108-09
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5700 BAN Docket No. 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 that Petitioner was advanced to E-6/MAl from the February 2008 Navy-wide advancement exam. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pfeiffer, Zsalman, and George reviewed Petitioner’s...
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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | CY2014 | NR6791 14
gsalman, Exnicios and Ruskin reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 21 July 2014 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of the contents of enclosures (2) and {3}, the Docket No.NR6791-14 Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following corrective action. 22...
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 | 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.