equally demanding tours may be equally best
qualified. In that respect, Navy members may
be assured that their careers will not be
unfavorably affected by service over extended
periods in important assignments to which they
have been ordered to meet the needs of the Navy.
· Special tours. Candidates presented to the board
compete within their rating. It is recognized,
however, that they are frequently detailed to duty
outside their rating specialties. Many such types
of duty require selectivity in assignment and
special qualifications. Therefore, due
consideration is given to those candidates who
serve in the demanding tours of duty as
instructor, recruiter, career counselor, recruit
company commander, duty in the Human Goals
Programs, and all other tours requiring special
· Education. Consideration is given to improving
education level. That includes both academic
and vocational training, whether such education
is gained as a result of the individuals initiative
during off-duty hours or as a participant in a
· Evaluations/fitness reports and the total person
Evaluations and fitness reports are
closely reviewed for both marks and narrative.
Trends are identified. The marks and narrative
must correspond on the evaluation/fitness report.
THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR
INFLUENCING SELECTION IS SUS-
TAINED SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE OF
DUTY. Peer group ranking also gives the board
members an indication of how candidates
compare with their peers. Personal decorations,
involvement also reflect a well-rounded
individual. The total concept is important.
· Duty assignments.
Duty assignments and
history of duties performed can be determined
from the service record transfers and receipts
page and the job description on the evaluations.
Using this data, the board members can
determine whether or not individuals are
performing duties commensurate with their rate
and whether professional growth expectancies
are being met.
· Weight standards. Failure to meet the Navys
weight/physical readiness test (PRT) standards
may render candidates ineligible.
· Alcohol-related misconduct or poor
performance. Advancement will not be denied
solely on the basis of prior alcoholism or alcohol
abuse, provided the member has participated in
successful treatment and recovery.
misconduct or reduction in performance
resulting from alcoholism or alcohol abuse,
however, must be considered in determining
fitness for advancement.
· Behavior problems. Individuals who have had
disciplinary problems, have received letters of
indebtedness, or have other record entries
relevant to behavioral difficulties, such as drug
abuse, demonstrated racial, sexual, or religious
discrimination, will find the path to E-7/8/9 more
difficult than those with clear records. Once those
problems are overcome, however, the single most
important selection factor is still SUSTAINED
· Test scores (E-7 only). Test scores are also taken
into account since they give an individuals
relative standing on the examination when
compared to the other candidates.
Once review of the entire rating is complete, the
panel arranges all of the candidates from top to bottom.
This is called slating. Once slating is completed, the
entire board is briefed as to the number of candidates,
and the background of individuals recommended and
not recommended for selection. During the briefing,
no names are used and the entire board votes on the
slate, which must be accepted by a board majority.
After the board approves all of the slating, all members
and the president sign a written report of the boards
recommendations for selectees and the report is
submitted to CHNAVPERS for approval. The content
of the report must certify that the board complied with
all instructions and directions contained in the precept
and that the board carefully considered the case of
every candidate whose name was furnished for review.
Upon CHNAVPERS approval of the selectees, a
NAVADMIN message is prepared and released to
announce the selectees.
During the boards deliberations, records may be
encountered that clearly indicate substandard
performance or, in the boards judgment, questionable
advancement recommendations. In such cases, the