DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

701 §. COURTHOUSE RD SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON VA 22204-2490

 

BAN
Docket No. 11652-11
12 March 2012

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

Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF Ji i ey

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

 

 

Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments

(2) Naval Personnel Command (NPC) memo 1430 Ser 811/073
of 15 Feb 12

(3) Office of the Assistant Secretary, Manpower and
Reserve Affairs, Limited Delegation of Authority memo
27 Bept 1i

(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/MC3
Navy-wide advancement examination and show that he met the
criteria to be advanced to E-4/MC3 from the September 2010
advancement cycle.

2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pfeiffer, Zsalman, and
George reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice
on 12 March 2012 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

EE
Docket No. 11652-i11

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 2008. Over the next two
years, he advanced from El to E3 and participated in an E-4
advancement cycle. 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/MC3 advancement cycle 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/MC3 exam cycle.

d. Examination of Petitioner's naval record reveals the
following: Petitioner enlisted in the Navy in December 2008.
He completed and submitted the standard security questionnaire
documents required of all enlistees. He attended and graduated
Defense Information School for the Mass Communications (MC)
rating in August 2009. Petitioner then transferred to the USS

GEORGE H.W. BUSH (CVN 77) in September 2009.

e. In September 2010, Petitioner participated in the
E-4/MC3 advancement exam and was selected for advancement with
an effective date of 16 June 2011. He was frocked in December
2010. Apparently, neither Petitioner, his command, nor NPC were
aware that he was ineligible to participate in the exam cycle.
There is no evidence that he was ever notified that he was
ineligible to participate in the advancement exam or to advance.

f£. In approximately May 2011, NPC invalidated the results
of his September 2010 advancement exam. This had the effect of
setting aside his scheduled advancement. NPC took this action
Docket No. 11652-11

because they learned that Petitioner had never had a DONCAF
adjudicated security clearance.

g. In early August 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 24 August 2011.

h. In September 2011, with his final adjudicated
clearance, Petitioner participated in the E-4/MC3 advancement
exam and was selected for future advancement.

i.. Petitioner has applied to this Board seeking to have
his E-4/MC3 September 2010 advancement exam validated
retroactively 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 MC “A” school and had been able
to take the E-4/MC3 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.*

k. Review of Petitioner’s last 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 his clearance status.

1. 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

 

2 Petitioner has provided a copy of his command’s POD for the September 2010
Navy-wide advancement exam. The POD does not mention anything regarding
Sailors needing a final adjudicated clearance in order to compete for
advancement.

3
Docket No. 11652-11

security clearance. For the entire time he has been in the
Navy, after his initial training, he served in his 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, 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 in 2010. His career
progression had not been impeded in any way. He had attended
“A" school, transferred, taken an advancement exam, 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 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 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-4/MC3 advancement
examination from the relevant cycles.

RECOMMENDATION :

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

a. Petitioner’s E-4/MC3 September 2010 Navy-wide
advancement examination will be revalidated.

b. Petitioner was advanced from the September 2010 Navy-
wide advancement examination with an effective date of
16 June 2011 and a Time In Rate date of 1 January 2001.

4
Docket No. 11652-11

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.

ef

pe

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN WILLIAM J. HESS, III
Recorder Acting Recorder
By Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out an

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.

12 March 2012 otha OO oe 9

Eoe_W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director