DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BAN
Docket No. 02505-11
1 November 2011
sg
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval
record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USE 1552).
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on
22 August 2011. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed
in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures
applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material
considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with
all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and
applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The Board also
considered information furnished by the Navy Personnel Command and the
Naval Education and Training Professional Development and Technology
Center pertaining to the relevant exams.
In September 2010, while participating the Navy-wide advancement
cycle, you were erroneously administered the E-6 examination for the
MM rating vice the MME rating. You were not advanced from that cycle.
In March 2011, you participated again in the Navy-wide advancement
cycle. This time, you were properly administered the E-6 examination
for the MME rating. You did not achieve the required cutting score
for advancement from the March 2011 cycle to advance in the MME
rating.
In light of the error made during the September 2010 cycle, you
requested advancement from the September 2010 cycle. In an effort to
ascertain whether you would have advanced or not from the September
2010 cycle (if you had taken the MME exam), the raw exam score that
you achieved on the March 2011 MME exam was applied to the remainder
of your profile For the September 2010 cycle. Unfortunately, even
when applying your March 2011 exam score to the September 2010 cycle,
you would not have made the cutting score necessary for advancement
from the September 2010 cycle, but you aid receive “Passed but Not
Advance” (PNA) points of (0.5). Thus, your request for advancement
from the September 2010 is denied.
In an effort to afford you the most favorable consideration possible,
the Board then examined whether you would have advanced from the March
Docket No. 02505-11
2011 cycle given your additional 0.5 PNA points from the September
2010 cycle. Unfortunately, review of your scores reveals that even if
you had been awarded the appropriate number of PNA points from the
September 2010 cycle, you still would not have achieved the required
cutting score to advance from the March 2011 cycle.
Therefore, after careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.
Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes of
the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that
favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the Board
reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material evidence
or other matter not previously considered by the Board. In this
regard, it is also important to keep in mind that a presumption of
regularity attaches to all official records. Consequently, when
applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is
on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
Sincerely,
Wan
W. DEAN PF
Executive tor
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 | 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 | 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 | CY2005 | 09732-05
9732-05 8 Mar 06This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 Usc 1552.A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 March 2006. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition,...
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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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.