PAS AOR AER TT OCREPY BREA ERS
UEP ARM WISIN WP Gk neal
D
701 S. COURTHOUSE RD SUITE 100%
ARLINGTON VA 22204-2490
BAN ;
Docket No.NRO2970-14
23 July 2014
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
TO: Secretary of the Navy
Subj: _
Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments
(2) Naval Personnel Command (NPC) memo 1430 Ser 812/0201
of 7 Jul 2014
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 her
Performance Mark Average (PMA) for the September 2011 Navy-wide
advancement exam cycle 212 should have been 3.8 vice 3.7.
Adé@itionally, that her Pass but Not Advanced (PNA) points
reflect 2.0 vice .5 for cycle 212.
2. 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 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.
CONCLUSION
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and
especially in light of the contents of enclosure (2), the Board
Finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following
corrective action.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Petitioner's naval record be corrected, where appropriate,
as follows:
a. Petitioner’s PMA for September 2011 Navy-wide
advancement cycle 212 is 3.8(74.00 points) vice 3.7(66.00
points).
b. Petitioner had two PNA points for the September 2011
Navy-wide advancement exam cycle 212.
c. Due to the aforementioned corrections, Petitioner was
advanced to E-5/ET2 from the September 2013 Navy-wide
advancement exam cycle 220 with an effective date of 16 June
2014 with a Time In Rate date of 1 January 2014.
a. Petitioner is authorized all back pay and allowances
from the effective date forward.
e, 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 9723.6{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 DAVZED/JJ. CASH
Recorder Acti Recorder
5. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section
6(e) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of
2
Docket No.NRO2S70-14
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.
23 July 2014 Te Se a
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7570 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 he was entitled to a Performance Mark Average (PMA) score of 3.80 vice 3.73 for a Passed but Not Advanced (PNA) point of .5 for the September 2011 Navy-wide advancement exam. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Exnicios, Ruskin and Midboe, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 28 October 2014 and,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6791 14
gsalman, Exnicios and Ruskin reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 21 July 2014 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of the contents of enclosures (2) and {3}, the Docket No.NR6791-14 Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following corrective action. 22...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6859 14
1552 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments {2} Naval Personnel Command (NPC) memo 1430 Ser 8112/0254 - of 13 Aug 2014 i. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a) Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval. The Board, consisting of Messrs. George, Ruskin and Exnicios reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 2 September 2014 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should...
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 | 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 | 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 | CY2014 | NR6491 14
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected by modifying the enlisted performance evaluation report for 16 June 2010 to 15 June 2011 {copy at Tab A) to change the rate from YN3 (pay grade B-4) to YN2 (pay grade E-5). The Board, consisting of Messrs. Hicks, Spooner and Swarens, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 18...
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 | 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.