DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

BAN
Docket No. 06079-11
4 November 2011

From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records

 

 

Toe Secretary of the Navy
Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD aaa
Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552

Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments
(2) Naval Personnel Command (NPC) memo 1430 Ser 811/425

of 30 Aug 11
(3) Office of the Assistant Secretary, Manpower and

Reserve Affairs, Limited Delegation of Authority memo

20 Sep tt
(4) NETPDTC Form 1430/3 for advancement cycle 204

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-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.

>. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pfeiffer, Zsalman, and
Exnicios reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and
injustice on 24 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
Docket No. 06079-11

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

b. Under BUPERINST 1430.16F, (Advancement Manual for
Fnlisted 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 2002. Over the next
nine years, she advanced from El to E5 and participated in
multiple E6 advancement cycles. During this time, she did not
have a DONCAF adjudicated security clearance. In 2011, upon
realizing that she did not have the required clearance, NPC
‘nvalidated the results of her E6 advancement cycles entirely.
Petitioner avers that she was unaware of any deficiency in her
clearance status. She cites the Navy’s actions between 2002 and
2010 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 E6 exam cycles.

d. Examination of Petitioner’s naval record reveals the
following: Petitioner enlisted in the Navy in February 2002.
She completed and submitted the standard security questionnaire
documents required of all enlistees. She attended and graduated
YN “A” in February 2004, then transferred to the PRECOMTRNGPAC,
in California, where she participated in the E-4/YN3 Navy-wide
advancement examination and was selected for advancement in
December 2004. She then transferred to PCU HALSEY (DDG 97) in
January 2005, and participated in the E-5/YN2 exam and was also
selected for advancement in September 2006. In January 2007,
Petitioner transferred to the USS HALSEY (DDG 97). She
participated in the September 2008 E-6/YN1 exam. She passed the
exam, but did not achieve the final multiple score necessary to
advance but received “Passed but not Advanced” (PNA) points.
Petitioner participated in the next three E-6/YN1 advancement
examinations. She successfully passed those exams, but did not
achieve the final multiple score needed to advance to E6é.
However, because of her passing exam scores, she was entitled to
and received PNA points. Those points may be used in subsequent
exam cycles to raise a participant’s final multiple score.

2
Docket No. 06079-11

e. In September 2010, Petitioner again participated in the
E6/YN1 advancement exam. However, in November 2010 she was
notified that her exam was invalidated due to not having a final
adjudicated security clearance and was not even scored.
Apparently, neither Petitioner, her command, nor NPC were aware
that she was ineligible to participate in the exam cycles.

There is no evidence that he was ever notified that she was
ineligible to participate in advancement exams or to advance.

f. In addition, NPC invalidated the results of all of his
E6 advancement exams. This had the effect of 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.

cd. In November 2010, after being notified of the
deficiency in her clearance status, Petitioner re-submitted the
required security questionnaire documents to obtain the required
security clearance. She received her final adjudicated security
clearance promptly and without undue difficulty or hindrance on
4 January 2011.

h. In March 2011, with her final adjudicated clearance,
she participated in the E6/YN1 Navy-wide advancement
examination; however, she PNA’d the exam (but only because she
did not receive the PNA points from her previous exam cycles).

i. Petitioner has applied to this Board seeking to have
her E6 advancement exams validated retroactively for PNA points
to apply toward her March 2011 advancement exam, including
scoring her September 2010 exam. 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 YN “A” school
and been transferred several times. She had advanced from E-1
to E-5. 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 Navy career due to
security clearance issues and she was not aware that there was a
deficiency. Petitioner’s commanding officer has endorsed her
request.

j. Review of the “Plan of the Week” (POW) from her
current command, Command Naval Surface Group (CNSG) MIDPAC, in
Hawaii for the September 2011 examination fails to disclose any
Docket No. 06079-11

evidence that the requirement to hold a security clearance was
widely known or publicly announced.*

k. Review of Petitioner’s last Worksheets for the previous
E-6 exams 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. Petitioner had never “lost” or had her security
clearance revoked at any time. During his service in the Navy,
she has never been involved in misconduct to lose or forfeit her
security clearance. 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 late 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 ave
it had been identified earlier, it would have been resolved
earlier. Petitioner’s commanding officer 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

 

1 Petitioner’s prior commands did not hold copies of the Plan of the Week
(POW) from 2008-2010. However, Petitioner has provided a copy of her current
command's POW. The POW's do not mention anything regarding Sailors needing a
final adjudicated clearance in order to compete for advancement.

4
Docket No. 06079-11

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 should be
resolved in favor of the Petitioner. Therefore, the Board
concludes that the record should be corrected to validate
Petitioner's E-6/YN1 advancement examinations from the relevant

cycles.
RECOMMENDATION:

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

a. Petitioner’s E-6/YN1 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, and March 2010 Navy-wide
advancement exams.

c. Petitioner’s September 2010 Navy-wide advancement exam
be revalidated, scored, and if applicable, receive PNA points.

d. Petitioner advanced from the March 2011 Navy-wide
advancement exam with an effective date yet to be determined.

e. 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.

[Mea hE

ROBERT D. Z4SALMAN WILLIAM J. HESS,NIII
Recorder Acting Recorder
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
Docket No. 06079-11

hereby announced that the foregoing corrective action, has been
approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.

4 November 2011 “12 dD

92y DEAN PF
Executive niente