DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

BAN .
Docket No. 02523-11
24 August 2011

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

Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD QQigiiSSiS==iooinD

Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.¢, 1552

Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments

(2) Navy Policy and Plans Office (N132) memo 5800 Ser
N13/235 of 17 Jun 11

(3) BCNR Questionnaire in case of

(4) Department of the Navy Profile Sheet for the Sept 10
Navy-wide advancement examination (Selectee)

(5S) Commanding Officer’s frocking letter 1420 ADM of
1 Dec 10

(6) Department of the Navy Profile Sheet for the Sept 10
Navy-wide advancement examination (Invalidated)

(7) SECNAV Instruction M-5510.30 of Jun 06

(8) BUPERSINST 1430.16F of 2 Nov 07

(9} Commanding Officer’s endorsement ltr 1418 Ser 00/091
of 6 Mar 11

(10) JCAVS Summary date 16 Apr 11

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 her
September 2010 cycle 208, Navy-wide advancement examination and
show that she met the criteria to be advanced to E-5/A0Q2.

2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pfeiffer, Zsalman, and
George, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice
on 28 July 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 CNO Navy Policy and Plans Office (Code N132) that no
relief be granted.
Docket No. 02523-1121

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. Petitioner states that prior to her entry into active
duty naval service in December 2008, she completed and submitted
a Standard Form Security Clearance Questionnaire (SF 86), prior
to recruit training. Enclosure (1).

c. In February 2009, Petitioner advanced to E-3. She
attended AO “A” school from February to May 2009. Upon
completion, she received transfer orders to the USS RONALD
REAGAN (CVN-76). Shortly thereafter, in June 2009, she was
advanced to E-4/A03 through the Command Advancement Program for
the exceptional performance of her duties. Enclosure (3).

d. In September 2010, Petitioner participated in the
E-5/AO02 Navy-wide advancement examination. At that tame,
Petitioner, her chain of command, her educational service
officer and her command career counselor all believed she was
fully eligible to participate in the exam cycle. In November
2010, the advancement results were released and Petitioner was
notified that she achieved the cutting score and was designated
as a “selectee”. Enclosure (4). In December 2010, she was
“frocked” to E-5/A02 with a prospective date of advancement, yet
to be determined. Enclosure (5).

e. In February 2011, before her effective date of
advancement, her examination was invalidated by the Naval
Education and Training Professional Development and Technology
Center (NETPDTC) because she did not have (and never had) a
final adjudicated security clearance. Enclosure (6).

f. Navy regulations require members who are serving in.
certain ratings to have security clearance eligibility,

1 pursuant to the SECNAV M-5510.30, June 2006, the term” security clearance
eligibility” has replaced “security clearance,” when referring to a formal
determination made by an authorized adjudicative entity that an individual
meets national security standards. Security clearance eligibility is
officially recorded and subject to due process procedures. Security
clearance now refers to a state that exists whenever eligibility has been
properly established by an authorized adjudicative entity and access has been
properly authorized by the command. Security clearance is understood to

2
Docket No. 02523-11

enclosure (7). 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 advancement *. Enclosure (8).

g. In early March 2011, Petitioner applied again for a
security clearance. Prior to receiving her final adjudication,
her command allowed her, yet again, to take the advancement exam
in mid March 2011.

h. In March 2011, Petitioner also submitted a DD Form 149
to the Board for Correction of Naval Records seeking to have her
September 2010 advancement exam validated retroactively. She
states that she was shocked to learn that her clearance status
was deficient. She had submitted her SF 86 long ago. She had
graduated from AO ‘A’ school. She had advanced from E-1 to E-4.
She was performing the duties of her rate. And she had been
allowed to participate in several exam cycles. She had never
been held back in any way from progressing through her career
due to security clearance issues and she was not aware that
there was a deficiency. Enclosure ({1).

1. Petitioner’s commanding officer strongly endorses her
request. He states that “due to an administrative oversight and
through no fault of QD, she was allowed to
participate in the September 2010 advancement examination and
subsequently scored high enough to be selected for promotion..and
frocked on 16 November 2010. The Education Services Office
failed to check the required security clearance..and allowed her
to participate in the exam”. Enclosure (9).

j. In April 2011, Petitioner’s security clearance was
finally adjudicated by the Department of the Navy Central
Adjudication Facility (DONCAF). Petitioner was granted a

security clearance. The favorable adjudication took only 45
days. Enclosure (10). Petitioner had never “lost” or had her

 

exist at the level of access authorized. When a command authorizes access to
Classified information pending completion and formal adjudication of the
required PSI, this action was termed “interim clearance” in the past.
However, EO 12968 standards more accurately refer to this action as
“temporary access” because it is an access determination under command
purview. It is not a clearance determination and it carries no due process
benefits.

? All personnel designated in certain ratings and special programs as listed
in table 2-3 of BUPERINST 1430.16F “must maintain, as a minimum, continuous
security clearance eligibility” (Table 2-3 lists AC, AE, AG, AO, AT, AW, Adz,
CT, HOD, ET, FC, FT, GM, HT, Ic, IS, IT, LN, MA, MC, MN, MT, ND, OS PC, QM,
SB, SO, STG, STS, and YN; Air crew and Nuclear Trained Personnel).

3
Docket No. 02523-11

security clearance revoked at any time. In fact, for the entire
time she had been in military service, she had worked in a
classified rating with classified material, under a temporary
access security clearance granted to her by the commanding
officer pursuant to the SECNAV M-5510.30 Instruction.

k. By enclosure (2), Navy Plans and Policy Office (N132)
recommended that no relief be granted. They reason as follows:
(1) Under the governing instruction, she was not qualified to
participate in the exam cycle; (2) Allowing her to advance would
be unfair to other Sailors who were properly barred from taking
exams for the same reasons at other commands; and (3) Although
it is unfortunate that her exam wag invalidated through no fault
of her own, a command admission of error is not adequate
justification for violation of the policies.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence in the record,
the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants favorable
action. 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
her clearance status prior to February 2011; she had submitted
the SF 86 much earlier; her career progression had not been
impeded in any way; she had attended schools, transferred, taken
advancement exams, advanced and worked in her rating free from
any impediment. Once the error was identified, it was quickly
rectified, suggesting that if it had been identified earlier, it
would have been resolved earlier. Petitioner's commanding
officer places the responsibility for the error on the education
service officer (the office that verifies that Sailors are
authorized and qualified to take an advancement exam), and not
on the Petitioner. He strongly endorses Petitioner’s request.
Furthermore, 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. Finally, the Board understood that there may be
others who were properly barred from competing for advancements
due to security clearance deficiencies. However, balancing the
factors that militate in favor of relief against those that
militate against, in the Board@’s view, the matter she should be
resolved in favor of the Petitioner. Therefore, the Board
concludes that the record should be corrected to validate
Petitioner’s E-5/A02 advancement examination from the September
2010, cycle 208.
Docket No. 02523-11

RECOMMENDATION :

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

a. Petitioner’s E-5/A02 advancement examination for cycle
208 will be revalidated. Petitioner will be advanced to E-5/A02
at the time she would have advanced if the exam had not been
invalidated.

b. That a copy of the Report of Proceedings, be filed in
the 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.

didlconn hE

ROBERT D. Z2SALMAN WILLIAM J. HESS,
Recorder Acting Recorder
5. The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your

review and action.

 

Leu!

W. DEAN PFRI
Executive reetor

Reviewed and approved: