DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS . 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 

Docket No. 1629-16 
AUG 15 2016 

From: Chairman, Board for Correction ofNaval Records 
To: Secretary ofthe Navy 

Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD ICO 

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

Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments 
(2) NPC memo 1430 Ser 812/0163 dtd 28 Apr 16 
(3) NPC ltr 1430 Ser 812 dtd 28 Jan 16 · 
(4)NPCltrINREPLYTO 1440dtd 10Aug2015 
(5) Individual Profile Sheets
( 6) Immediate Re-enlistment Contract dtd 25 Sep 15  
(7)ltr 1430 VCN 69-00 dtd 12 Dec 15 

1. 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 
to authorize and advancement. 

2. The Board, consisting of                  , reviewed Petitioner's 
allegations of error and injustice on 22 June 2016 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined 
that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence ofrecord. 
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted ofthe 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 ofthe Navy. 

b. On 10 August 2015, Petitioner was approved to convert from the rating 
to the via the C-Way Re-enlistment Program. See enclosure (4). 

c. On 23 September 2015, Petitioner took the September 2015 cycle 228 Navy Wide 
Advancement Exam (NW AE) for the rating. Petitioner states that she tookthis exam since 
she had not received any counseling or instructions on how to proceed with her approved rating· 
conversion to See enclosure (1) and (5). 

d. On 2S September 201S, Petitioner re-enlisted as a into the Navy Reserve Full Time 
Support (FTS). Petitioner states that she reenlisted at this time as per instruction from her 
leadership. See enclosure (I) and (6). 

e. On 19 November 201S, Petitioner was selected for advancement to 
from the September 201S NWAE. See enclosure (S). 

f. On 12 December 201S, Petitioner was frocked to ES by the authority of the Commanding 
Officer (CO). See enclosure (7). 

g. On 28 January 2016, in response to the Petitioner's request, an advancement 
determination was denied. Per PERS-812, as the Petitioner had already been approved for a 
rating conversion, she should not have taken the rate NWAE, as she was no longer in the 
proper path of advancement from the exam. Additionally, PERS-812 stated that there were 
no provisions to adequately compare exam against a exam. See enclosure (3). 

h. 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 should 
be denied. First, the Petitioner was not eligible to take the September 201 S BM2 NWAE as she 
was approved for conversion to the rating. Secondly, there are no provisions to compare a 
exam to a exam. Lastly, if the Petitioner had not re-enlisted, changing her 
component to FTS prior to the exam, her Final Multiplier Score (FMS) of 106.47 would not have 
exceeded the FMS of 117.99 required to be advanced. 

CONCLUSION 

Upon review and consideration ofall the evidence of record, and notwithstanding the contents of 
enclosure (2), the Board finds the existence ofan injustice warranting corrective action. The 
Board acknowledges that the Petitioner took an advancement exam, passed the exam, and was 
frocked.

Additionally, the Board acknowledges that the member had one year to re-enlist 
after her approved conversion. The Board concluded that the Petitioner's command did not 
properly advise her on the proper procedures for completing her conversion and as she passed 
the exam, should not be penalized and should be advanced to in accordance with the 
September 201S cycle 228 NWAE. 

RECOMMENDATION: 

That Petitioner's naval record be corrected, where appropriate, to show that: 

a. Petitioner's September 201S cycle 228 NWAE is re-validated. 

b. Petitioner was advanced from the September 201S cycle 228 NWAE. Petitioner is 
advanced effective 16 June 2016 with time in rate (TIR) 1January2016. 

c. A copy ofthis Report ofProceedings will be filed in Petitioner's naval record. 

4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) ofthe revised Procedures ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval 
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 foregoin is a true and complete 
record of the boards procedings in the above entitled matter.

5. The foregoing action ofthe Board is submitted for your review and action. 

Executive Director