DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

BAN

Docket No. 06253-10
2 March 2011

From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
Tos Secretary of the Navy

Ref: (a} Tithe 1G U.8.C. Le52

 

Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments

(2) NPC memo 1430 Ser 811/046 of 19 Jan 11
(3) JCAVS Person Summary

(4) NAVPERS 1070/613 of 7 Feb 08

(5) MILPERSMAN 1530-010 of 13 Sep 06

(6)
(7)

Navy Stats for CTI2/E-5 for Cycle 199

Email between , DONCAF, Code 24
and BCNR on 4 Jan 11

(8) Excerpts from Naval Record

 

1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a) Sub) ect,
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 pursuant to his
Advance Technical Field Contract and a retroactive advancement
to E-5 from the March 2008 Navy-wide advancement examination.

2. 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. 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 all
Docket No. 06253-10

administrative remedies available under existing law and
regulations within the Department of the Navy.

b. Prior to entering active duty, Petitioner submitted the
required paperwork for a National Agency Check with Local Agency
Check and Credit Check (NACLC), a basic security requirement for
entry into United States military service. Petitioner entered
active duty as an E-3 with a contract program guarantee for
Advanced Technical Field/Cryptologic Technician-Interperative
(ATF/CTI), enclosure (1).* On 21 November 2007, upon completion
of the Defense Language Institute (DLI) school (Group 4-Korean),
Petitioner was not in receipt of his security clearance;
therefore, he was placed on a Clearance hold at DLI in Monterey,
California from 21 November 2007 to 5 February 2008. He finally
received his security clearance on 5 February 2008, enclosure
(3), and was promoted to E-4/CTI3 on 16 February 2008, with a
Time In Rate (TIR) date of 1 January 2008, enclosure (4).

c. Petitioner claims that it was through no fault of his
own that he didn’t receive his security clearance before the
completion of DLI school. He further claims that if he had been
advanced on 21 November 2007, (graduation date) pursuant to the
MILPERSMAN 1510-030, enclosure (5), instead of 16 February 2008,
his TIR date would have also changed to 1 July 2008, thereby
making him eligible for the March 2008, advancement examination
for E-5/CTI2, six months sooner. Moreover, because the March
2008 E-5 advancement exam cycle had a 100% advancement rate, he
contends he should be advanced to E5 alse.”

d. To support his claim, Petitioner submits enclosure (7),
an email from the Department of the Navy Clearance Adjudication
Facility (DONCAF), which states that the failure to have a
clearance was not the member’s fault and that for some unknown
reason, the clearance information was not entered into Joint
Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS). DONCAF states that
Petitioner was granted an eligibility for Top Secret/Security
Clearance Interim (SCI) based on an Single Score Background
Information (SSBI) that was completed on 24 July 2006, but was
never entered into JPAS. However, once the error became known,
the entry was corrected and entered on 5 February 2008.

 

1 aTF/CTI program authorizes a member to be advanced to E-4 upon completion of
school. In member’s case, since he was a CTI, his school was the Defense
Language Institute for Korean. -

2 petitioner has participated in the September 2008, March 2009, September
2009, March 2010, and September 2010, Navy-wide advancement examinations for
E-5/CTI2 and has Passed But Not Advanced (PNA’d) on each cycle exam.
Docket No. 06253-10

e. By enclosure (2), the Naval Personnel Command (NPC)
recommends that only partial relief be granted. NPC relying on
advice from CNO N132, recommends that Petitioner be advanced
from E-3 to E-4 on 21 November 2007, with a TIR date of 1 July
2008, due to a delay in obtaining a security clearance that was
beyond his control. However, NPC does not support Petitioner's
request to be advanced from E-4 to E-5, based on the following
rationale: 1) it is not a foregone conclusion that he would
have passed the E-5/CTI2 Navy-wide examination, 2) based on his
evaluation average over the past four E-5 examinations, there is
no guarantee that he would have received the commanding
officer’s recommendation to take the E-5/CTI2 examination back
in March 2008, 3) the CTI detailer states that the CTI Group 4
is extremely overmanned, which may create a community management
issue within the CTI Group 4 if he is advanced now, and 4)
granting relief may take away an advancement quota in spring
2011, for someone who might be a better candidate.

 

CONCLUSION :

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of the record,
the Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants favorable
action. The Board concurs with NPC that it was through no fault
of the Petitioner that he did not receive his security clearance
before graduation from DLI school and that he should be advanced
to E-4/CTI3 effective 21 November 2007, with a TIR date of 1
July 2008. However, the Board agrees with Petitioner that he
also would have been eligible to take the E-5/CTI2 Navy-wide
advancement exam in March 2008. The Board found that a number
of factors militated towards granting relief, including the
following: The delay in entering his adjudicated clearance was
not attributable to him, the delay acted to Petitioner’s
detriment because he lost an opportunity to participate in an
examination cycle that he would otherwise have been eligible
for.? Accordingly, the Board concludes that the record should be
corrected to show that Petitioner is advanced to E-4/CTI3 on 21
November 2007, and to E-5/CTI2 from the March 2008 Navy-wide
advancement exam with an effective date of 16 December 2008, and
a TIR date of 1 July 2008.

 

3 The Board noted that Petitioner's evaluations show that he has been
consistently recommended for retention in a “Promotable” (or higher) category
since 2008. In June 2010, he was recommended for early promotion. Thus, the
Board did not share the concerns of N132 that Petitioner may not have been
able to secure an advancement recommendation in 2008.
Docket No. 06253-10

RECOMMENDATION :

That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected, where appropriate,
to show that:

a. Petitioner is advanced to E-4/CTI3 effective 21
November 2007, with a Time In Rate date of 1 July 2007.

 

b. Petitioner is further advanced to E-5/CTI2 effective 16
December 2008, with a Time In Rate date of 1 July 2008.

A. 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.

 

| i =

W. DEAN i FF

Executive Da\ne
Reviewed and approved:

Hb Wd Vif

ROBERT L. WOODS

Assistant General Counsel
(Manpower and Reserve Affairs)
41000 Navy Pentagon, Rm 4D548
Washington, DC 20350-1000