DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

BAN
Docket No. 00712-11

24 October 2011

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

Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL ee

Ref: (a) 10 U.S... L552

Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments

(2) Naval Personnel Command (NPC) memo 1430 Ser 811/306
of 9 Jul it

(3) Office of the Assistant Secretary, Manpower and
Reserve Affairs, Limited Delegation of Authority memo
27 Sept 11

(4) NETPDTC Form 1430/2 for advancement cycle 211

 

1. 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-5/MA2
Navy-wide advancement examinations and show that he met the
criteria to be advanced to E-5/MA2 from the March 2011 cycle.

 

2. 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. Documentary material
considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval
records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The
Board also considered enclosure (2) which is a recommendation
from the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) Code 811 (Career
Progression Department) that no relief be granted.

x

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
Docket No. 00712-11

regulations within the Department of the Navy.

b. 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 a final clearance which has been adjudicated and
granted by the Department of the Navy Central Adjudication
Facility (DONCAF) .

c. Petitioner entered the Navy in 2005 as an El. Over the
next six years, he advanced from E1 to E4 and participated in
multiple E5 advancement cycles. During this time, he did not
have a DONCAF adjudicated security clearance. In 2010, upon
realizing that he did not have the required clearance, NPC
invalidated the results of his E5 advancement cycles entirely.
Petitioner avers that he was unaware of any deficiency in his
clearance status. He cites the Navy’s actions between 2005 and
2010 as evidence that he reasonably believed he was qualified to
compete for advancement. The issue in this case is whether,
under the circumstances, his record should be changed to
validate the results of the E5 exam cycles.

 

d. Examination of Petitioner’s naval record reveals the
following: Petitioner enlisted in the Navy in September 2005.
He completed and submitted the standard security questionnaire

documents required of all enlistees. In January 2006, he
transferred to VP-30 in Jacksonville, Florida where he was
advance to E3. Petitioner was then selected for the Master-At-

Arms (MA) rating. He attended and graduated MA school on 2
February 2008 and was advanced to E4/MA3 through the accelerated
advancement program. In September 2008, he participated in the
E-5/MA2 examination. However, he “Passed but not Advanced”
(PNA). Petitioner then participated in the next three E-5/MA2
advancement examinations. He successfully passed those exams,
but did not achieve the final multiple score needed to advance
to ES. However, because of his passing exam scores, he was
entitled to and received PNA points. Those points may be used
in subsequent exam cycles to raise a participant’s final
multiple score.

 

e. In September 2010, after taking the E5/MA2 exam again,
and PNA’ing the exam, he was notified in December 2010 that his
E-5/MA2 advancement exam was being invalidated due to not having

2
Docket No. 00712-11

a final adjudicated security clearance. Apparently, neither
Petitioner, his command, nor NPC were aware that he was
ineligible to participate in the exam cycles. There is no
evidence that he was ever notified that he was ineligible to
participate in advancement exams or to advance.

f. In addition, NPC invalidated the results of all of his
ES advancement exams. This had the effect of depriving him of
PNA points (earned on prior advancement cycles). NPC took this
action because they learned that Petitioner had never had a
DONCAF adjudicated security clearance.

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 received his final adjudicated security clearance
promptly and without undue difficulty or hindrance on 4 January
2011. NPC has not, however, revalidated his exams.

h. In March 2011, with his final adjudicated clearance, he
participated in the E5/MA2 Navy-wide advancement examination;
however, he PNA’d the exam with a final multiple score of
150.69, missing advancement by 8.31 points (minimum multiple
required was 159.00). However, had he received had all the PNA
points from the previous examination cycles that were
invalidated for E-5/MA2, he would have had a final multiple
score of 161.69, making him a “selectee” for advancement to the
next higher pay-grade.

 

i. Petitioner has applied to this Board seeking to have
his E5 advancement exams validated retroactively for PNA points
to apply toward his March 2011 advancement exam. He states that
he was unaware that his clearance status was deficient. He had
submitted the required security questionnaire documents long ago
upon entering the Navy. He had graduated from MA “A” school and
been transferred several times. He had advanced from E-1 to
E-4. He was serving in his rate, and he had been allowed to
participate in several exam cycles. 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. Petitioner’s commanding officer has endorsed his
request for a revalidation of prior advancement examinations.

j. Review of the “Plan of the Week” (POW) from Naval
Docket No. 00712-11

Station, Norfolk, Virginia’ for the September 2011 examination
fails to disclose any evidence that the requirement to hold a
security clearance was widely known or publicly announced.’

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. Nor does it disclose any evidence that Petitioner was
aware of any deficiency in his clearance status.

m. Petitioner had never “lost” or had his security
clearance revoked at any time. During his service in the Navy,
he has never been involved in misconduct to lose or forfeit his
security clearance. For the entire time he has been in the
Navy, after his initial training, he served in his rating.

n. By enclosure (2), NPC Code 811 (Career Progression
Department) recommends that no relief be granted. NPC reasons
as follows: (a) Under the governing instruction, he was not
qualified to participate in the exam cycle; (b) Allowing him to
advance would be unfair to other Sailors who were properly
barred from taking exams for the same reasons at other commands;
and (c) Although it is unfortunate that his exam was invalidated
through no fault of his own, a command admission of error ig mot
adequate justification for violation of the policies.

CONCLUSION

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence, the
Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants favorable
action. The Board determined the following: The Board was
convinced that both Petitioner and the Navy were unaware of any
deficiencies in his clearance status that would disqualify him
from participating in an exam cycle prior to December 2010. His
career progression had not been impeded in any way. He had
attended schools, transferred, taken advancement exams, advanced
and worked in his rating free from any impediment. Once the
deficiency was identified, it was rectified, suggesting that if
it had been identified earlier, it would have been resolved
earlier. Petitioner’s commanding officer strongly endorses
Petitioner’s request and finds that the errors in this case are

 

1 The homeport of MAREXSECRON 6

2 Petitioner current command MAREXSECRON 6, where he took his E-5/MA2 Navy-
wide advancement exams did not hold copies of the Plan of the Week (POW) from
2008-2010. However, Petitioner has provided a copy of his commands current
POW. The POW’s still do not mention anything regarding examination dates or
the date on which participants should sign their Worksheets.

4
Docket No. 00712-11

not attributable to the Petitioner. The Board carefully
considered the comments made in enclosure (2). The Board
understood that, under the applicable regulations, Petitioner
was strictly ineligible to participate in the exam. However,
balancing the factors that militate in favor of relief against
those that militate against, in the Board's view, the matter he
should be resolved in favor of the Petitioner. Therefore, the
Board concludes that the record should be corrected to validate
Petitioner’s E-5/MA2 advancement examinations from the relevant
cycles.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected, where appropriate,
as follows:

a. Petitioner’s E-5/MA2 September 2008, March 2009,
September 2009, March 2010, and September 2010 Navy-wide
advancement examinations will be revalidated.

b. Petitioner will receive PNA points from the September
2008, March 2009, September 2009, March 2010, and September 2010
Navy-wide advancement exams.

c. Petitioner was advanced from the March 2011 Navy-wide
advancement examination. The effective date will be the date
that he would have advanced if the exams had never been
invalidated.

d. 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 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.

[kObiane 42

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN WILLIAM J. Ye tbien. |
Recorder Acting Recorder
5: Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in

enclosure (3) and having assured compliance with the provisions
Docket No. 00712-11

of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723), it is
hereby announced that the foregoing corrective action, has been
approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.

24 October 2011 \ \
Ww

DEAN PFE
Executive D3