DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

BAN
Docket No. 03866-11
5 October 2011

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

si} Eee Ba ss A Ee

Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552

Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments
(2) Naval Personnel Command (NPC) memo 1430 Ser 811/371

of 5 Jul 11
(3) Office of the Assistant Secretary, Manpower and
Reserve Affairs, Limited Delegation of Authority memo

27 Sept 11
(4) NETPDTC Form 1430/3 for advancement cycle 208

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 E-5/A02
Navy-wide advancement examinations and show that she met the
criteria to be advanced to E-5/A02 from the September 2010

evele.

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. °

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. 03866-11

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 2006. Over the next
three years, she advanced from El to E4 and participated in
multiple E5 advancement cycles. During this time, she did not
have a DONCAF adjudicated security clearance. In 2009, upon
realizing that she did not have the required clearance, NPC
invalidated the results of her ES advancement cycles entirely.
Petitioner avers that she was unaware of any deficiency in her
clearance status. She cites the Navy’s actions between 2006 and
2009 as evidence that she reasonably believed she was qualified
to compete for advancement. The issue in this case is whether,
under the circumstances, her 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 on 28 March 2006.
She completed and submitted the standard security questionnaire
documents required of all enlistees. She attended AO “A” school
and graduated on 28 July 2006. During the next two years, she
was stationed aboard the USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT CVN 71, where
she advanced to E-3. She later transferred to VAW 120
CARAEWRON, where she advanced to E-4. Her next duty station was
at CNATTU Jacksonville, Florida, where in March 2009 and
September 2009, she participated in the E-5/A02 Navy-wide
advancement examinations. She successfully passed those exams,
but did not achieve the final multiple score needed to advance
to E5. However, because of her passing exam score, she was
entitled to and received “Passed but not Advanced” (PNA) points.
Those points may be used in subsequent exam cycles to raise a
participant’s final multiple score. There is no evidence that
she was ever notified that she was ineligible to participate in
advancement exams or to advance. In early March 2010, she
transferred to the PATROL SQUADRON FIVE, in Naval Air Station,
Jacksonville, Florida.
Docket No. 03866-11

e. In March 2010, at Petitioner’s new command, she was
authorized by the Educational Service Office to participate
again in the E-5/A02 Navy-wide advancement examination. In May
2010, when the advancement results were released, she learned
that she had again, PNA’d the exam. Apparently, neither
Petitioner, her command, nor NPC was aware that she was
ineligible to participate in the exam cycle.

f. In September 2010, Petitioner participated in the
E-5/A02 advancement exam again. This time, she achieved the
final multiple score necessary to advance to ES. She was
notified of her selection and her advancement was scheduled to
be effective 16 June 2011. She was also frocked’ to E-5/A02.
However, in December 2010, she was notified that she would not
be advanced as scheduled. NPC invalidated the results of all of
her ES advancement exams. This had the effect of setting aside
her scheduled advancement (from the September 2010 cycle) and
depriving her 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 her clearance
status, in February 2011, Petitioner re-submitted the required
security questionnaire documents to obtain the required security
clearance. She received her final adjudicated security
clearance fairly promptly and without undue difficulty or
hindrance on 14 June 2011. NPC has not, however, revalidated her
exams.

h. Petitioner has applied to this Board seeking to have
her ES advancement exams validated retroactively. She states
that she was unaware that her clearance status was deficient.
She had submitted the required security questionnaire documents

long ago upon entering the Navy. She had graduated from AO “A”

school and been transferred several times. She had advanced
from E-1 to E-4. She was serving in 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.

 

1 Frocking is the custom and policy of allowing a Petty Officer who has been
selected for promotion to wear the insignia of the higher grade before the
official date of the advancement. A frocked Petty Officer is accorded the
privileges and authorities of the "new" rank, but does not receive the pay
for it, because it is not yet official.

3
Docket No. 03866-11

i. Petitioner’s commanding officer strongly endorses her
request. He states that she “truly believed that she was in
compliance with all advancement requirements” and that she is an
exceptional performer.

j. Review of the “Plan of the Week” (POW) from PATROL
SQUADRON FIVE in the weeks leading up to the September 2010
examination fails to disclose any evidence that the requirement
to hold a security clearance was widely known or publicly
announced. The POWs only addressed the examination dates and
the date on which participants should sign their Worksheets.

k. Review of Petitioner’s Worksheet, (enclosure 4) for the
September 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 her clearance status.

1. In June 2011, Petitioner’s security clearance was
favorably adjudicated by DONCAF. She had never “lost” or had
her security clearance revoked at any time. She has never been
involved in misconduct. For the entire time she has been in the
Navy, after her initial training, she served in her rating.

m. By enclosure (2), NPC Code 811 (Career Progression
Department) recommends that no relief be granted. NPC reasons
as follows: (a) Under the governing instruction, she was not

qualified to participate in the exam cycle; (b) 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 (c) Although it is unfortunate that her exam was 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, 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 her clearance status that would disqualify her
from participating in an exam cycle prior to December 2010. 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
deficiency was identified, it was rectified, suggesting that if
it had been identified earlier, it would have been resolved

4
Docket No. 03866-11

earlier. Petitioner’s commanding officer strongly endorses
Petitioner’s request and finds that the errors in this case are
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 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 examinations from the relevant
cycles.

RECOMMENDATION:

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

a. Petitioner’s E-5/A02 March and September 2009, and
March and September 2010 Navy-wide advancement examinations will

be revalidated.

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

ec. Petitioner will be advanced to E-5/A02 from the
September 2010 Navy-wide exam with an effective date of 16 June
2011, and a Time In Rate date of 1 January 2011.

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.

¥

[liar A?
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN WILLIAM J. HESS, III
Recorder Acting Recorder
Docket No. 03866-11

5. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in
enclosure (3) and having assured compliance with the provisions
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.

5 October 2011 a) OS Tp

For. W. DEAN EIFFER
Executive Director