Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7570 14
Original file (NR7570 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

701 S COURTHOUSE RD SUITE 1001

ARLINGTON VA 22204-2480
BAN
Docket No.NRO7570-14
30 October 2014
Prom: Chairman, Board for Correction cf Neval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy
Subj: el
Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552

Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments
(2) Navy Personnel Command (NPC) memo 1430 Ser 812/0269 of 26
Aug 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 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. Furthermore, that with the .5 PNA point, he would
have advanced to E-6/0S1 from the March 2014 Navy-wide advancement
exam.

2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Exnicios, Ruskin and Midboe,
reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on

28 October 2014 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the
partial 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 regulaticns
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 Petitioner’s request
warrants partial relief as described below.

CONCLUSION

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.NRO7570-14

the existence of an injustice warranting the following partial
corrective action.

RECOMMENDATION:

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

a. Petitioner had an overall PMA’ score of 3.80 for the September
2011 Navy-wide advancement exam.

b. Petitioner received .5 PNA points for the September 2011
Navy-wide advancement exam.

Note 1: Petitioner's March 2014 Final Multiple was miscalculated and

Note 2: Petitioner's Navy Achievement Medal has already been
jmcorporated into his service record, with no further change in score.

c. That so much of Petitioner's request for corrective action as
exceeds the foregoing be denied.

d. A copy of this Report of Proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s

navel 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.

 

5. Pursuant to the delegation 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 partial corrective action, taken under the authority of

reference (a), has been approved by the Board on pehalf of the
Secretary of the Navy.

30 October 2014

ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Fxyecutive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2970 14

    Original file (NR2970 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2014 | NR6859 14

    Original file (NR6859 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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

    Original file (06079-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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

    Original file (00712-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2010 | 07085-10

    Original file (07085-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | 06139-11

    Original file (06139-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    es Upon being notified of the deficiency in his clearance status, in late May 2010, Petitioner re-submitted the required security questionnaire documents to obtain the required security clearance. * 1. Review of Petitioner's last Worksheet, (enclosure 4) for the March 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. c. If the PNA points from the re-validated...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00082-10

    Original file (00082-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a) Subject, hereinafter referred to ag Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected to show that Petitioner was either advanced to E-4/LS3 from the March 2009 Navy-wide advancement exam or received Passed but Not Advanced (PNA) points from the March 2009 advancement exam cycle. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pfeiffer, Zsalman, and Exnicios reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 06780-11

    Original file (06780-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | NR6791 14

    Original file (NR6791 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2011 | 10262 11

    Original file (10262 11.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...