DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

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

 

BAN
Docket No. 00379-12
12 March 2012

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

Sub}: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF ey es ee

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

Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments
(2) Naval Personnel Command (NPC) memo 1430 Ser 811/075

of 15 Feb 12

(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/HT3
Navy-wide advancement examination and show that he met the
criteria to be advanced to E-4/HT3 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
Docket No. 00379-12

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 2008. Over the next two
years, he advanced from El to E3 and participated in an E-4/HT3
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/HT3 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/HT3 exam cycle.

d. Examination of Petitioner's naval record reveals the
following: Petitioner enlisted in the Navy in July 2008. He
completed and submitted the standard security questionnaire
documents required of all enlistees. He attended and graduated
Hull Technician (HT) “A” school in February 2009. Petitioner
then transferred to the USS KIDD (DDG 100) in March 2009.

e. In September 2010, Petitioner participated in the
E-4/HT3 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 ‘sn 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
because they learned that Petitioner had never had a DONCAF
adjudicated security clearance.
Docket No. 00379-12

g. In September 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 and September 2011
exam cycles. He received his final adjudicated security
clearance without undue difficulty or hindrance on 30 November
2011.

h. Petitioner has applied to this Board seeking to have
his E-4/HT3 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 HT “a” gchool 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 and stated that

was not at fault in reference to having a final security
clearance determination. Fg had submitted the proper

paperwork for a clearance in June 2008”.

3. Review of the “Plan of the Day” (POD) from his
previous 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
security clearance. For the entire time he has been in the
Navy, after his initial training, he served in his rating.

 

1 petitioner has provided a copy of his previous 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. 00379-12

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/HT3 September 2010 Navy-wide
advancement examination will be revalidated.

b. Petitioner was advanced from the E-4/HT3 September 2010
Navy-wide advancement examination with an effective date of
16 June 2011 and 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.
Docket No. 00379-12

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

Bh. 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.

12 March 2012 TRS \

fom W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director