Be
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE RD SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON VA 22204-2490
BAN
Docket :NRO05391-13
16 September 2013
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
TO: Secretary of the Navy
el
Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552
Encl: (b} DD Form 149 w/attachments
{2) Navy Personnel Command (NPC) memo 1430 Ser 812/0490
of 30 Aug 2013 -
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 show that Petitioner received
9 vice 12 award points on the IT/E-6 August 2009 Navy-wide Reserve
advancement exam, 11 vice 12 award points on the February 2010
advancement exam, and 11 vice 10 award points on the August 2010
advancement exam, to ultimately be advanced to ITi/E-6 from the August
2010 Reserve Navy-wide advancement examination.
2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pfeiffer, Zsalman and
George reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 16
September 2013 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.
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 regulations
within the Department of the Navy.
b. In correspondence attached as enclosure (2), the office
having cognizance over the subject matter addressed in Petitioner’s
application has commented to the effect that the request has merit and
warrants favorable action.
CONCLUSTON
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and
especially in light of the contents of enclosure (2), the Board finds
Docket No.NRO5391-13
the existence of an injustice warranting the following corrective
action.
RECOMMENDATION :.
That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected, where appropriate, as
follows:
a. Petitioner received 9 vice 12 award points on the August 2009
Navy- wide Reserve advancement examination.
b. Petitioner received 11 vice 12 award points on the February
2010 Navy-wide Reserve advancement examination.
c. Petitioner received 11 vice 10 award points on the August
2010 Navy-wide Reserve advancement examination and was advanced to
E-6/IT1 with an effective date of 16 June 2011 and a Time In Rate date
2 1 January 2011.
d. That a copy of this Report of Proceedings 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.
| umd
ROBERT 'D, ZSALMAN BRONTE I. MONTGOMERY
Recorder . a Acting Recorder
5. Pursuant to the délegation of authority set out in Section 6{e)
of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records
(32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723. 6(e)) and having assured
compliance with its provisions, it is hereby
announced that the foregoing corrective action, taken under the
authority of reference (a), has been approved by the Board on behalf
of the Secretary of the Navy.
16 September 2013
bs. Raart
eeecusiae
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 10262 11
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. 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. VOZ62-12 that Petitioner...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 10656 11
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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 06780-11
g. In September 2010, Petitioner again participated in the E6/AZ1 advancement exam. Apparently, neither Petitioner, her command, nor NPC were aware that she was ineligible to participate in the exam cycles. 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2970 14
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 show that her Performance Mark Average (PMA) for the September 2011 Navy-wide advancement exam cycle 212 should have been 3.8 vice 3.7. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Zsalman, Ruskin and Exnicios reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 21 July 2014 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07085-10
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BAN Docket No. In September 2010, with his final adjudicated clearance, he participated in the E6/AE1 Navy-wide advancement examination and was selected and advanced with an effective date of 16 June 2011. j. Petitioner has applied to this Board seeking to have his E6/AE1 advancement exams validated retroactively for PNA points to apply toward his September 2009 advancement exam. NPC and CNO...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03866-11
f. In September 2010, Petitioner participated in the E-5/A02 advancement exam again. g. Upon being notified of the deficiency in her clearance status, in February 2011, Petitioner re-submitted the required security questionnaire documents to obtain the required security clearance. She had advanced from E-1 to E-4.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 06079-11
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BAN Docket No. 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/YN1 Navy-wide advancement examinations and show that that her E-6/YN1 examinations from September 2008 through September 2010 be validated and receive PNA points to be applied to her March 2011 exam. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 11272 11
g. 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. 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. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00712-11
The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pfeiffer, Zsalman, 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. g. Upon being notified of the deficiency in his clearance status in December 2010, Petitioner re-submitted the required security questionnaire documents to obtain the required security clearance. He had advanced...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3503-13
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a) Petitioner filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pfeiffer, Zsalman and George reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 20 August 2013 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section 6(e) of the revised Procedures of...