DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE RD SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON VA 22204-2490
BAN ,
Docket No.NP05122-14
13 January 2015
From; Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy
So) rc
Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments
(2) Navy Personnel Command (NPC) memo 1430 Ser 812/0370.
of 24 Nov 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 he received
two points for his Individual Augmentation (IA) from June 2011
to April 2012 for the September 2012 E-6 Navy-wide advancement
examination. Additionally, that he was eligible to take the
September 2011, March 2012 (without the two IA points) and
September 2012 (with the two IA points) E-6 exams.
WHE: «viewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice
on 12 January 2015 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.
Docket No.NR05122-14
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 was eligible to take the September 2011 and
March 2012 E-6 Navy-wide advancement examinations due to having
a Time in Rate waiver from his Commanding Officer for an Early
Promote rating.
b. Petitioner is authorized two points for his IA from
June 2011 to April 2012 towards his September 2012 Navy-wide
advancement examination. : Does
c. Petitioner was eligible to take the September 2012 E-6
Navy-wide advancement examination.
NOTE: NPC shall ensure that since Petitioner was advanced to
-E-6 from the March 2013 Navy-wide advancement, that his
advancement score shall be compared to the September 2011, March
2012 and September 2012 E-6 advancement examination to see if he
would have been advanced at an earlier date. If Petitioner does
advance on an earlier date, then he will be entitled to all
retroactive back-pay from his new effective date forward.
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 matt
Ss Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section
6{e) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of
a
Docket No.NR05122-14
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.
13 Yanuary 2015 Yfa/ UbenlLZ’
ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Director
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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | CY2012 | 00379 12
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. 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,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 11652 11
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. 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,...
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.