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

Docket No. 4487-16  
DEC 23 2016 
 
From: Chairman, Board for Correction ofNaval Records  
To:  Secretary of the Navy  

Subj:  REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD ICO  
Ref: (a) Ttle 10 U.S.C. 1552 
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachrnents 
(2) NPC memo 1430 Ser 812/1272 <ltd 16 Aug 16 
(3) POLL printout 
(4) Training Data 
(5)Commander,  ltr 1430 00 <ltd 13 May 16 
(6) Commander.  ltr 1430 00 dtd 7 Apr 16 
(7) Commander,  1430 Ser NO 1/073 dtd 12 Apr 16 
(8) OPNAVINST 5351.2A 
(9) MILPERSMAN 1510-030 
(10) MMPA Printout 

1. Pursuant to the provisions ofreference (a) Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected to backdate an advancement. 

2.  The Board consisting of ,  reviewed allegations oferror and injustice on 26 September 2016 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. Petitioner entered active duty under the Advanced Technical Field Information System Technician Program (ATF/IT) on 16 June 2014 in the paygrade ofE-1. Note: Per enclosure (9). this program authorizes accelerated advancement to E2 upon completion ofrecruit training and accelerated advancement to E4 after 6 months time-in-rate (TIR) as an E3, and upon completion of all other advancement requirements to exclude the Navy Wide Advancement Exam (NW AE). See enclosures (2) and (3). 

c. Petitioner was advanced to E-2 on 8 August 2014, upon completion ofrecruit trainjng. See enclosure (3) and (10). 

d. Petitioner graduated from "A" school on 16 January 2015. See enclosure (4). 

e. Petitioner was advanced to E-3 on 16 May 2015, after completing 9 months TIR as an E-2. See enclosure (3). 

f. Petitioner was TIR eligible for advancement to E-4 on 16 November 2015. The Petitioner received his Commanding Officer's (CO) endorsement for advancement on 4 December 2015. However, the Petitioner was unable to be advanced at this time due to errors with in the Physical Readiness Information Management System (PRJMS). Per the Command, these issues were rr olved in February 2016. See enclosures (2) and (5). 

g. Petitioner successfully completed the Petty Officer Indoctrination Course on 3 March 2016. See enclosure ( 4). 

h. The Petitioner's CO states that the Petitioner was advanced to E-4 effective 16 March 2016. However, their intention was to have the Petitioner's advancement backdated to 4 December 2015. The CO states that the Petitioner failed the Body Composition Analysis (BCA) from Cycle 1/20 15; therefore, his advancement to E-4 was withheld effective his eligibility date of 16 November 2015. Additionally, the Petitioner failed the BCA for Cycle 2/2015, but he passed the Physical Readiness Test (PRT) portion ofCycle 2/2015. Therefore, on 4 December 2015, the CO gave rus recommendation for advancement. Due to an error in PRJMS concerrung the aforementioned PRT, the CO was not able to advance the Petitioner until the error was fixed. Upon submitting the advancement paperwork to the Personnel Support Detachment (PSD), his paperwork was rejected due to the fact that the Petitioner had not completed the Petty Officer Indoctrination Course (as of the requested advancement date of 4 December 2015). Note: Tills course is required for all advancements to E-4, regardless of the program authorizing the advancement. See enclosures (3) and (5). 

i. On 7 April 2016, a leadersrup development waiver was submitted the Immediate Superior In Charge (!SIC). Per enclosure (8), when operations necessitate frocking or advancement of enlisted Sailors before they have completed their applicable leader development training, CO's shall request an ISIC waiver. The waiver was approved on 12 April 2016. The Petitioner's CO states that upon submission of the waiver to the PSD, they were advised to submit a BCNR. See enclosures (5), (6) and (7). 

j. 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. Recommendation for denial is due to the fact that the Petitioner had completed the Petty Officer Indoctrination Course prior to the request and approval for the waiver. 

MAJORITY CONCLUSION 

Upon review and consideration ofall the evidence of record, and notwithstanding the contents of enclosure (2), the majority of the Board finds the existence ofan injustice warranting corrective action. The majority concluded that the CO's intention was to promote the Petitioner in December 2015; however, due to the PRIMS error, the CO was unable to effect the promotion at the time. Upon learning that the Petitioner was not eligible for advancement due to not having completed the Petty Officer Indoctrination Course, they requested a waiver in order for the Petitioner to be promoted as recommended. Even though the waiver was submitted after completion ofthe course, the majority feels that the CO's intentions were made clear per enclosure (6) and the Petitioner' s advancement should be backdated. 

MAJORJTY RECOMMENDATION: 

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

a. Petitioner's CO requested and received approval for a Leadership Development Waiver on 4 December 2015 vice 12 April 2016.
 
b. Petitioner was advanced to E4 effective 14 December 2015 vice 16 March 2016. 

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


MTNORJTY CONCLUSION 

found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. In this connection, the minority substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion. In this regard, the minority agreed that requesting a waiver for the requirement of the Petty Officer Indoctrination course, after the course had been completed, was not appropriate. Additionally, the minority questioned why the Petitioner was not able to complete the Petty Officer Indoctrination Course in between the time he completed "A" school in January of2015 and the time he was eligible and recommended for promotion in December 2015. 

MINORITY RECOMMENDATION: 

That the Petitioner's request be denied. 

4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the 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 foregoing is a true and complete record ofthe Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.

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



Executive Director