DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

BAN
Docket No. 06780-11
4 November 2011

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

Subj}: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD eee

Ref: (ea) 20 0.8.¢c.. 1852

 

Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments

(2) Naval Personnel Command (NPC) memo 1430 Ser 811/445
of 14 Sept 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-6/AZ1
Navy-wide advancement examinations and show that that she was

advanced to E-6/AZ1 from the September 2010 Navy-wide
advancement examination.

 

2. 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. injuptice,

finds as follows:

a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all
administrative remedies available under existing law and
Docket No. 06780-11

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) .

ec. Petitioner entered the Navy in 2001. 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
invalidated 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 2001 and
2011 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 July 2001. She
completed and submitted the standard security questionnaire
documents required of all enlistees. She attended and graduated
AZ “A” in December 2001, then transferred to the VR-1, where she
participated in the E-4/AZ3 Navy-wide advancement exam and was

selected for advancement in February 2004. She then transferred
to VFA-201 in May 2005, and participated in the E-5/AZ2 exam and
was also selected for advancement in March 2006. In March 2007,

Petitioner transferred to the NOSG Forth Worth. She
participated in E-6 advancement exams in September 2008, March
2009 and September 2009. She passed the exams, but did not
achieve the final multiple score necessary to advance but
received “Passed but not Advanced” (PNA) points.

e. In January 2010, Petitioner was notified that she
needed to re-submit another security clearance request through
the e-quip website. She complied with the request, just as she
had done in 2001 when she first enlisted. There is no evidence
that she was informed that she was ineligible to compete for
advancement.
Docket No. 06780-11

f. In February 2010, Petitioner transferred to VR-58, and
participated in the March 2010 exam and PNA’d the exam.
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. Her
exam was not invalidated nor was she told that she did not have
a valid security clearance to participate in the exam.

g. In September 2010, Petitioner again participated in the
E6/AZ1 advancement exam. Her exam was scored. However, she was
not initially selected for advancement due to a miscalculation
of her performance mark average. Her command submitted the
corrected documentation to the Naval Personnel Command (NPC) .*
NPC corrected her score and was now a “selectee” for
advancement. Petitioner was never made aware of any security
clearance issues or a lack thereof by NPC. In addition,
Petitioner did not participate in the March 2011 exam since she
believed she was already selected to advance. In May 2011, she
was notified that her September 2010 exam was invalidated due to
not having a final adjudicated security clearance. Apparently,
neither Petitioner, her command, nor NPC were aware that she was
ineligible to participate in the exam cycles. There is no
evidence that she was ever notified that she was ineligible to
participate in advancement exams or to advance.

h. In addition, NPC invalidated the results of all of her
prior 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.

Li In June 2011, 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 without undue difficulty or hindrance on 12
August 2011.

4. In September 2011, with her final adjudicated
clearance, she participated in the E6/AZ1 Navy-wide advancement
examination; however, the results have not yet been released.

k. Petitioner has applied to this Board seeking to have
her E6 advancement exams validated retroactively for PNA points

 

1 gBven during the rescoring, NPC did not recognize or apprehend that she did
not have a clearance.
3
Docket No. 06780-11

to apply toward her September 2010 advancement 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 AZ “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 favorably endorsed her request.

1. Review of the “Plan of the Week” (POW) for the
September 2010 exam from her previous command (VR58) fails to
disclose any evidence that the requirement to hold a security
clearance was widely known or publicly announced.’

m. 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.

n. 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.

o. 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

 

2 petitioner has also 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. 06780-11

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 mid-2011. 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
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
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/AZ1 advancement examinations from the relevant
cycles and Petitioner should be advanced from the September 2010
exam cycle.

RECOMMENDATION:

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

a. Petitioner’s E-6/AZ1 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 was advanced from the September 2010 Navy-
wide advancement cycle with an effective date of 16 June 2011
with 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
Docket No. 06780-11

foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board’s
proceedings in the above entitled matter.

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN WILLIAM J. bitlean ;
Recorder Acting Recorder
B 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.

4 November 2011 RD,