When a Sailor is selected to Chief Petty Officer, advancement is not a gift; it reflects years of leadership, performance, and the command’s prior recommendations. Because the stakes include pay, seniority, and long-term career trajectory, the regulations are explicit about when a command may withhold advancement—and when it may not.
In a recent matter, a selected E-7 received a Page 13 “withhold advancement” entry while on short-term limited duty (LIMDU) for a behavioral-health diagnosis. We submitted a formal request for redress arguing the hold violated Navy policy and should be rescinded.
The posture
- The member had been selected to E-7 under a current NAVADMIN announcing CPO selections.
- While the member was on LIMDU, the command issued a “withhold-advancement” Page 13 via NSIPS.
- The Page 13 mis-cited an instruction that does not exist – and even the correct policy did not support the command’s decision.
- There was no misconduct, no PFA failure, no PEB referral, and no pending ADSEP based on medical unfitness.
What the regs actually say
1) NAVADMIN (CPO selections).
Annual CPO NAVADMINs set eligibility and amplify the advancement cycle’s administrative rules. Selection confers eligibility to advance upon meeting statutory and policy prerequisites; it does not erase the command’s duty to ensure those prerequisites are met. But the flip side is equally true: commands may not invent new disqualifiers.
2) BUPERSINST 1430.16G (Enlisted Advancement Manual).
This governs advancement eligibility, command validation, and when a command may lawfully withhold advancement or recommend removal from a selection list. The instruction lists disqualifying conditions (for example, confinement, desertion, and failure to meet Physical Readiness Program standards under OPNAVINST 6110.1). It also addresses medical status, making clear that temporary medical limitations—standing alone—do not automatically void advancement eligibility. Where a medical issue raises fitness questions, the Disability Evaluation System (DES) is the correct forum, not an indefinite freeze on a duly earned promotion.
3) OPNAVINST 6110.1 (Physical Readiness Program).
Advancement may be withheld for PFA failure consistent with the instruction and the Enlisted Advancement Manual. A member who has not failed the PFA is not disqualified from advancement on physical-readiness grounds.
4) DES vs. administrative workarounds.
Questions about fitness for continued naval service are handled through the Medical Evaluation Board/Physical Evaluation Board pathway (SECNAV DES policy; DoD disability standards). If a command believes the member cannot perform the duties of his or her rate, the lawful remedy is to initiate DES, not to use advancement as leverage.
5) MILPERSMAN 1900-120 (Condition Not a Disability).
“Condition Not a Disability” separation is an extraordinary tool and, at certain career points, requires flag-level approval. It is not a shortcut around the DES when the issue is genuinely medical. Floating C&D while taking no formal action—and using the mere possibility to justify a promotion freeze—puts the cart before the horse.
Why the hold failed under the rules
In this case, the command’s Page 13 did not cite a valid, applicable disqualifier. There was no evidence of misconduct; the member had no PFA failure; no PEB had been initiated; and no ADSEP had been noticed for medical disqualification. A temporary LIMDU for an adjustment-type diagnosis—especially one tied to new parenthood, operational tempo, and a one-deep billet—is not, by itself, a regulatory bar to advancement. If the Navy genuinely doubts fitness, it must say so and begin the medical process designed to answer that question.
Put simply, advancement cannot be withheld because a command prefers to “wait and see.” The Enlisted Advancement Manual allows withholding and list removal for enumerated reasons. LIMDU by itself is not on the list. Using an inapposite cite—or a non-existent one—and then freezing advancement because a C&D action might someday be considered is arbitrary and capricious under the Navy’s own framework.
How we presented the redress
Our request asked the command to rescind the withholding recommendation and validate the member’s eligibility to advance, emphasizing:
- The advancement rules in BUPERSINST 1430.16G do not authorize a blanket hold based solely on temporary LIMDU.
- If the Navy believes the member cannot perform duties commensurate with rate, the proper forum is DES, not an advancement freeze.
- Referencing potential C&D without initiation—and without required higher approval—cannot substitute for the processes the regulations actually prescribe.
- Withholding advancement has immediate pay and seniority consequences incongruent with the facts and the policy.
Why this matters beyond one case
An advancement hold is often described as “just administrative,” but in practice it functions like punishment: it delays pay, affects precedence among peers, and sends a damaging signal to future selection boards and detailers. The rules exist to keep that power tethered to evidence and to the right forum. Commands have authority to withhold—but only for the reasons the instruction allows. Medical questions belong in the disability system; readiness questions belong in the physical-readiness framework; misconduct belongs in military justice or administrative separation, with notice and a chance to respond.
When a hold rests on the wrong standard—or on no valid standard at all—Sailors can ask for command-level redress and, if necessary, elevate to the correction boards for relief. Thanks to timely interference and advocacy by the Griffin Law Firm, a Service Member will proudly continue service as a Chief!
Advancement cycles move fast. If your promotion is on hold, don’t just assume the military got it right. Call (888) 707-4282 or message us to schedule a consultation. We will gladly fight on your behalf to make sure what the regulations say and what your leaders do are properly aligned.