DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

701 § COURTHOUSE RD SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON VA 22204-2490

 

BAN
Docket No. 10262-11
28 June 2012

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

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

 

Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments

(2) Naval Personnel Command (NPC) memo 1430 Ser BLi/121
of 15 Feb 2012

(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 his E-4/A03
Navy-wide advancement examinations and show that he met the
criteria to be advanced to B-4/A03 from the September 2010

eyo Le.

2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. pfeiffer, Zsalman, and
George reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice
on 25 June 2012 and, pursuant to 4ts regulations, determined
that the corrective action indicated below should be teken 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. 10262-11

bp. 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, jncluding Petitioner's
rating, ‘must maintain, as 4 minimum, cont inucus 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 ano.
granted by the Department of the Navy Central Adjudication

Facility (DONCAF) .

c. Petitioner entered the Navy in 2008. Over the next two
years, he advanced from El to E3 and participated in two B-4
advancement cycles. During this time, he did not have a DONCAF

adjudicated security clearance. In 2011, upon realizing that he
did not have the required clearance, NPC invalidated the results

of his E-4 advancement cycles entirely. Petitioner avers that
he was unaware of any deficiency in his clearance status that
would disqualify him from competing for advancement . He cites
the Navy's actions between 2008 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 E-4 exam

cycles.

qa. Examination of Petitioner's naval record reveals the
following: Petitioner enlisted in the Navy in August 2008. He
completed and submitted the standard security questionnaire
documents required of all enlistees. He attended and graduated
aviation Ordnance (BO) “A" school in December 2008. Petitioner
then transferred to the USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD-6) in February
2009. In March 2010, he participated in the E-4/A03 Navy-wide
advancement examination. He passed the exam, but did not

achieve the final multiple score necessary to advance.
Therefore, since he “passed but not advanced” (PNA), he was

entitled to and received PNA points. Those points may be used.
in subsequent exam cycles to raise a participant's final

multiple score.

e. In September 2010, Petitioner again participated in the
R-4/R03 advancement exam and was selected for fubure
advancement. He was frocked in November 2010. Apparently,
neither Petitioner, his command, nor NPC were aware that he was

ineligible to participate in the exam cycles. There is no
Docket No. 10262-11

evidence that he was ever notified that he was ineligible to

participate in advancement exams or to advance.

fs. af approximately February 2011, NPC invalidated the
results of his March 2010 and September 2010 advancement exams.
This had the effect of setting aside his scheduled advancement
(from the September 2010 cycle) and depriving him of PNA points
(earned on the prior advancement cycle). NPC took this action
because they learned that Petitioner had never had a DONCAF

adjudicated security clearance.

gq. In March 2011, after being notified of the deficiency
in his clearance status, Petitioner re-submitted the required

security questionnaire documents to obtain the required security
clearance. However, by this time, he had missed the opportunity

to participate in the March 2011 exam cycle. He received his

final adjudicated security clearance without undue difficulty or
hindrance on 13 April 2011.

hb. In September 2011, with his final adjudicated
clearance, Petitioner participated sn the E-4/A03 and was
selected for advancement .

i. Petitioner has applied to this Board seeking to have
his E-4 March 2010 advancement exam validated retroactively for
PNA points to apply toward his September 2010 advancement exam
for advancement . 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” school and had been able to
take the E-4 exam without any prior issues. 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 that would disqualify him from competing for
advancement . Petitioner's commanding officer (CO) has favorably

endorsed his request.

j. Review of the “Plan of the Day” (POD) from his
current command for the September 2010 examination fails to
disclose any evidence that the requirement to hold a security
clearance was widely known or publicly announced.”

 

opy of his command's POD for the September 2010

The POD's do not mention anything regarding
rder to compete for

1 petitioner has provided a ©
Navy-wide advancement exam.
Sailors needing a final adjudicated clearance ino

advancement .
3
Docket No. VOZ62-12

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.

1. Petitioner had never “lost” oF had his security
clearance revoked at any time. During his service in the Navy,
he has never been involved in misconduct to lose oF forfeit his
security clearance. For the entire time he has been itt the

Navy, after his initial training, he served in his rating.

m. By enclosure (2), NEC 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, 4 command admission of error is not

adequate justification for violation of the policies.

CONCLUSION

Upon review and consideration ef 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 in 2010. His career
progression had not been impeded in any way. He had attended
schools, taken advancement exams, and worked in his rating free
from any impediment. once the deficiency was identified, it was
rectified, suggesting that if it had been jdentified earlier, it
would have been resolved earlier. Petitioner's commanding
officer favorably endorses Petitioner's request. The Board
carefully considered the comments made in enclosure (2), The
Board understood that, under the applicable regulations,
Petitioner was ger LceLy ineligible to participate in the exams.
However, balancing the factors that militate in favor of relief
against those that militate against, 4n 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-4/B03 advancement

examinations from the relevant cycles.

RECOMMENDATION :

That Petitioner's naval record be corrected, where appropriate,

4
Docket No. 10262-11

as follows:

a. Petitioner's E-4/A03 March 2010 Navy-wide advancement
examination will be revalidated.

b. Petitioner will receive PNA points from the
March 2010, Navy-wide advancement exam.

wide advancement examination with an effective date of
16 June 2011 and a Time In Rate date of 1 January 2011.

ad. 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.

| bleaw LUE

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN WILLIAM J. HESS, III

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

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

28 June 2012 Neb 9 7

f7~W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director