DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-51 00

 

BAN
Docket No. 06139-11
11 October 2011

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

Sub): eae i

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

Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments
(2) Naval Personnel Command (NPC) memo 1430 Ser 811/336

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

(4) NETPDTC Form 1430/3 for advancement cycle 207

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-6/AO1
Navy -wide advancement examinations and show that he met the
criteria to be advanced to E-6/AO1 From the March 2011 evele..

2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pfeiffer, Z4salman, 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:
Docket No. 06139-11

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 had prior honorable service with the Marine
Corps from 1997 to 2001. He then entered the Navy in 2001 as an
E3. Over the next nine years, he advanced from E3 to E5 and
participated in multiple E6é 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 E6 advancement
cycles entirely. Petitioner avers that he was unaware of any
deficiency in his clearance status. He cites the Navy’s actions
between 2001 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 E6 exam cycles.

d. Examination of Petitioner’s naval record reveals the
following: Petitioner enlisted in the Navy in November 2001.
He completed and submitted the standard security questionnaire
documents required of all enlistees. He attended and graduated
AO “A” in April 2002, then transferred to SFWPAC El Centro where
he received an accelerated advancement to E4. Upon transferring
from there, he attended and graduated from AO “C” school in May
2004, where he was given follow on orders to MCAS Miramar,
California until May 2005. He then transferred to the USS
BOXER, where he was advanced to E-5 in June 2006. While
Stationed aboard the USS BOXER, beginning in September 2008 he
participated in the next three E-6/AOl advancement examinations.
He successfully passed those exams, but did not achieve the
final multiple score needed to advance to E6. However, because
of his passing exam scores, he 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 he was ever notified
that he was ineligible to participate in advancement exams or to
advance.
Docket No. 06139-11

e. In March 2010, Petitioner was again authorized by the
Educational Service Office to participate in the E-6/A0Ol1 Navy-
wide advancement examination. In May 2010, when the advancement
results were released, he learned that the exam had been
invalidated. Apparently, neither Petitioner, his command, nor
NPC were aware that he was ineligible to participate in the exam
evyele.

£. In addition, NPC invalidated the results of all of his
F6 advancement exams. This had the effect of setting aside his
scheduled advancement (from the March 2010 cycle) and 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.

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. However, prior to the September 2010, Navy-wide
advancement exam cycle, Petitioner had still not received his
final clearance. He received his final adjudicated security
clearance without undue difficulty or hindrance on 25 February
2011. NPC has not, however, revalidated his exams.

h. In March 2011, with his final adjudicated clearance, he
participated in the E6/AO1 Navy-wide advancement examination;
however, he PNA’d the exam with a final multiple score of
197.71, missing advancement by 1.5 points (minimum multiple
required was 199.20).

i. Petitioner has applied to this Board seeking to have
his E6 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 AO “A” and *C"”
schools and been transferred several times. He had advanced
from E-3 to E-5. 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.

3.  Petitioner’s commanding officer strongly endorses his
request. He states that “after reviewing all the information
provided, it is my opinion that the lack of a security clearance
was through no fault of his own” and that “he was never advised

3
Docket No. 06139-11

then, and has never been advised since...[that there was] a
problem with his security clearance.”

k. Review of the “Plan of the Week” (POW) from the USS
CARL VINSON (CVN 70) in the weeks leading up to the March 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 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 his clearance status that would disqualify him
from participating in an exam cycle prior to May 2011. His
career progression had not been impeded in any way. He had
attended schools, transferred, taken advancement exams, advanced

 

1 Petitioner has since transferred from the command where he took the March
2010 E6/AOl Navy-wide advancement exam. His previous command did not hold
copies of the Plan of the Week (POW) from 2010. However, Petitioner has
provided a copy of his current command's 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. 06139-11

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
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-6/AOl advancement examinations from the relevant
cycles.

RECOMMENDATION :

 

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

a. Petitioner’s E-6/A0O1 September 2008, March 2009,
September 2009, and March 2010 Navy-wide advancement
examinations will be revalidated.

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

advancement exams.

c. If the PNA points from the re-validated exams will
result in Petitioner's advancement from the March 2011 Navy-wide
advancement, then he will be advanced to E6/AOl at the time he
would have advanced if no exams had 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.

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN WILLIAM J. HESS, III
Recorder Acting Recorder
Docket No. 06139-11

ae 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.

11 October 2011