CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 1998-004
The applicant received a mark of 4 (on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being the poorest performance level) for block 9.e., which is titled “Health and Well-Being” and which is expressly required to reflect an officer’s use of alcohol as well as his or her weight and effort to care for his or her health during the rating period. The Chief Counsel alleged that “[i]n foregoing this timely opportunity, Applicant’s failure to submit an OER reply was tacit indication that he accepted the rating...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 1998-018
Allegations Concerning Second Contested OER The applicant alleged that the second disputed OER, which covered the period from July 16, 199x, to August 5, 199x, should be removed because the supervisor [S] and reporting officer [RO2] for that OER married each other within a year of completing the OER. The third OER that the applicant received for his work on the XXXX project (no. In regard to the second disputed OER, he alleged, and the Coast Guard admitted, that the supervisor and...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 1998-020
This final decision, dated April 22, 1999, is signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST FOR RELIEF The applicant, a xxxxxxxxxxx in the Coast Guard, asked the Board to correct his record by removing an officer evaluation report (OER) that contains comments referring to his knee surgery and convalescence. VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On March 30, 1999, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended denial of the applicant’s request for relief. The provision for reply is intended to...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 1998-038
The applicant alleged that six marks of 33 on the first disputed OER are inaccu- rate and inconsistent with the comments. Affidavit of the OO, the Operations Officer of the Xxxx The OO stated that the marks he gave the applicant in the first disputed OER were based on the applicant’s performance. The instructions state the following: (d) In the “Comments” sections following each evaluation area, the Re- porting Officer [or Supervisor] shall include comments citing specific aspects of the...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 1998-043
(2)(c) states that “[f]or any officer whose Reporting Officer is not a Coast Guard commissioned officer, the Reviewer shall describe on a separate sheet of paper the officer’s ‘Leadership and Potential’ and include an additional ‘Comparison Scale’ mark.” Article 10.A.1.a. Three of the four OERs he received while at the Xxxx are the disputed OERs. Upon review of the [applicant’s] 07 June 199x OER, I felt the marks and comments by both the Supervisor and the Reporting Officer merited...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 1998-067
This final decision, dated December 17, 1998, is signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST FOR RELIEF The applicant, a xxxxxx in the Coast Guard, asked the Board to correct his record by removing a special officer evaluation report (disputed OER) received while serving as the xxxxxxxxx at the xxxxxxxx.1 The applicant also requested that the Board remove from his record any other documents referring to his removal as xxxxxxxxx. “The xxxx” was the xxx of the Xxxxxxxxx of the Xxxxxx. ...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 1998-073
APPLICANT'S ALLEGATIONS The applicant alleged that he received two negative and inaccurate OERs as a student engineer because his supervisor, the Engineer Officer on the cutter xxxx, incor- rectly administered his qualification process for the Student Engineering Program (SEP). Allegations Regarding the Second Reporting Period Aboard the xxxx The applicant also alleged that his supervisor failed to counsel him monthly, as required by the SEP Instruction, after April 199x. The record...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 1998-084
This final decision, dated May 6, 1999, is signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST FOR RELIEF The applicant, a xxxxxxxxxxxxxx in the Coast Guard, asked the Board to correct his record by removing three officer evaluation reports (OERs). The commanding officer (CO) of the xxxx acted as both the supervisor and the reporting officer for all three disputed OERs. The applicant alleged that the reviewer for the OERs was an officer who had no opportunity to observe the applicant‘s...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 1998-105
However, the Chief Counsel stated, “all the disputed OERs are a fair and accurate representation of his performance and, therefore, this nexus analysis is irrelevant.” APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS Article 10.A.4. The last four of these marks were assigned by the same reporting officer and appear as the first four OERs in the chart on page 5, below. (7) of the Personnel Manual requires rating chain members to assign to each officer the mark in each performance category...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 1999-077
LCDR XX = Chief of the Command and XXX at XXX who allegedly informed the XXXX command that XXX was concerned about her performance at XXX. Xxxxx = Coast Guard xxxxx who served as xxxxx in the XXX and XXX xxxxxs and is now the xxxxxxx of the Coast Guard (see statement). However, the only complex xxxxx [the applicant] had been assigned to as an assistant [xxx xxx] in order to gain experience had been dismissed prior to xxx, and she had not yet been in xxxxx on anything other than [the...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 1999-083
Therefore, on January 12, 2000, the Board asked the Coast Guard to provide, if possible, (1) written confirmation by one or more members of the selection board that the applicant’s failure of selection was not due to an administrative oversight and (2) certain statistical information concerning the records of officers near the cut-off point on the selection list. of the Personnel Manual prescribes: “Except for its Report of the Board, the board members shall not disclose proceedings or...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 1999-109
APPLICANT'S ALLEGATIONS The applicant alleged that he received low marks and adverse comments in the disputed OER because of an e-mail message he sent to a subordinate at the xxxxx in xxxxxx. Regarding the comments in block 11., on Leadership and Potential, the applicant alleged they are in error because he committed “no lapse in judgment.” Moreover, he argued, because his reporting officer wrote that he was “deserving of additional opportunities to demonstrate his full potential,” he...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 1999-142
He alleged that none of his supervisors or the executive officer (XO) of the Xxxx, who was his reporting officer and who wrote the comments, “had ever mentioned any watchstanding issues during the reporting period.” Upon receiving the disputed OER, the applicant alleged, he asked his supervisor about the negative comments. Naval Flight School and that his performance was “well above average.” However, as a student, his performance was not evaluated in his OERs but marked “not...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 1999-160
Instead, he argued, the BCMR should require the Coast Guard to prove that the selection boards acted fairly in denying him promotion. 1994 Selection Board Documents On xxxx, 1994, the Commander of the Military Personnel Command (MPC) issued the precept for the 1994 (promotion year 1995) xxx selection board. The Coast Guard is last of 5 [military] services in percentage of minority officers and next to last for women.
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 1999-183
1999-183 The applicant, a xxxxx in the Coast Guard, asked the Board to correct his military record by changing his date of rank to what it would have been had he been selected for promotion to the rank of xxxx by the selection board that met in xxxx 1998 rather than the board that met in xxxx 1999. The applicant applied to the PRRB to have his failure of selection for xxxx removed from his record and to have his promotion back dated if he were selected by the 1999 board so that he would...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2000-128
This rating chain was his active duty rating chain, but two of the officers had also served on his Reserve rating chain: the supervisor was the same person who served as his supervisor for the biennial OER 4, and the reporting officer had served as the reviewer for OER 4. Duties of the Rating Chain Each OER is prepared by the reported-on officer’s “rating chain” of three senior officers: the supervisor (usually the officer to whom the reported-on officer answers on a daily basis), the...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2000-131
This final decision, dated April 12, 2001, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, who retired from the Coast Guard as a xxxxxx on xxxxxxx, asked the Board to make the following corrections to the final officer evaluation report (OER) in her record: 1. correct her middle initial from “x” to “x”; 2. correct the last four digits of her social security number (SSN) to those shown in the caption of this Final Decision; 3. correct her pay grade...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2000-163
2000-163 Application for Correction of Coast Guard Record of: DECISION OF THE DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL ACTING UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY The Final Decision of the Board for Correction of Military Records (the Board) accurately summarizes the Applicant’s Request for Relief, the Summary of the Record, the Applicant’s Allegations, the Decision of the Personnel Records Review Board, the Applicant’s Further Allegations, the Views of the Coast Guard, the Applicant’s Response to the Views of the Coast...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2000-169
This final decision, dated May 31, 2001, is signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, who resigned his commission as a XXXXXXXXX in the regular Coast Guard on December 1, 1964, asked the Board to correct the errors and injustices in his record caused by his failure to be selected for promotion to commander in the Coast Guard Reserve in 1971. § 261(d), it is impossible for anyone to know why the applicant was passed over, but that, as the Acting Commandant...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2000-183
The applicant also claimed that the reviewer’s comments and rating scale mark should be removed because they are inconsistent with the supervisor’s and reporting officer’s evaluation of his performance and potential. The reviewer for this particular OER wrote that “[t]he Reporting Officer’s Block 9 comparison scale is high for Coast Guard OERs for [the applicant’s] grade, but is indicative of the valuable service he has provided to his host command.” For the OER in question, the applicant’s...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2001-014
He alleged that the error must have caused his failure of selection in because, after the Personnel Records Review Board (PRRB) corrected the reviewer’s comment page of the OER in July 2000, he was selected for promotion by the next LCDR selection board to consider his record. Although CGPC alleged that the electronic record still contained the uncorrected comment page long after the selection board met, no explanation was provided as to how the correction could not have been executed when...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2001-017
The applicant alleged that she told her supervisor about the class. The Chief Counsel pointed out that the XO’s declaration supports the supervisor’s comment in the disputed OER. out, the applicant did not dispute in her application to the PRRB: The Chief Counsel also addressed the following comments, which, he pointed COMMENTS [A1] & [A2]: The Chief Counsel alleged that the applicant’s excuse for resisting supporting the reservists (being short-staffed) “does not refute the objectivity of...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2001-023
The applicant alleged that the LT failure of selection letter was removed from his record in April 1998, before the CDR selection board met that year. Memorandum of the Coast Guard Personnel Command CGPC pointed out that the applicant was selected for promotion to LT in 1986 and to LCDR in 1991 even though the February 10, 1986, form letter was in his record when it was reviewed by those selection boards. CGPC alleged that, with the comparison mark of 3 and no well developed...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2001-075
“Briefed officers of all grades/services & civilian personnel from xxx agencies to improve port readiness. The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant’s supervisor gave him a copy of the disputed OER. He stated that Article 10-A- 2.d(2)(e) of the Personnel Manual provides for “performance feedback to the Reported- on Officer upon that officer’s request during the period or at such other times as the supervisor deems appropriate.” FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1.
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2001-085
The BCMR has jurisdiction of this case pursuant to section 1552 of title 10, applicant's record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission, and applicable law: United States Code. The Coast Guard has conceded that it committed an error in this case, and it has adjusted the applicant’s date of rank, pursuant to 14 U.S.C. Although, the Coast Guard corrected the applicant’s date of rank, it did not authorize back pay and allowances.
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2001-090
2001-090 Application for Correction of Coast Guard Record of: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx FINAL DECISION ULMER, Chair: The applicant, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, asked the Board to correct his record to show that he reenlisted for six years on March 2, 2001, rather than March 1, 2001. The applicant disagreed that he had more 10 years of active duty on that date. He recommended that the Board grant alternative relief by correcting the applicant's...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2002-007
This final decision, dated July 18, 2002, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST FOR RELIEF The applicant asked the Board to replace an officer evaluation report (OER) cov- ering his performance from June 1, 1998, to June 29, 1999, with a draft OER that had previously been prepared for him and that contained five marks that are higher than those in the disputed OER.1 He also asked the Board to remove his failure of selection for promotion. Moreover, according to CGPC, the...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2002-015
This final decision, dated April 30, 2003, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST FOR RELIEF The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record either by raising two evaluation marks he received from 3s to 4s, or higher, and removing the supporting comments in an officer evaluation report (OER) he received for the period July 16, 1998, through May 28, 1999, or by removing the entire OER from his record. Regarding Mr. B’s work as project manager, the applicant...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2002-076
He stated that as operation officer, he helped the applicant write OERs for the new junior officers and in his opinion these OERs were well written and well documented. Another LTJG, who was the combat information center officer and served as the applicant's administrative assistant, stated that towards the end of the reporting officer's tour, she noticed that he became increasingly stressed and preoccupied with a number of things -- namely retirement, change of command, his wife's...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2002-083
CGPC stated that the xxxx CDR selection board comprised Captain X as president and another captain and five commanders as members. CGPC also stated that, in addition to OER marks, the selection board members are advised to consider the candidates’ “performance, professionalism, leadership and education.” CGPC stated that an “officer can have an excellent record and still fail of selection for promotion as a result of the competition involved.” Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. Nor did CWO...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2002-084
Among the duties of managing his or her performance, the reported-on officer requests an “end-of-period conference” not later than 21 days before the end of the reporting period with his supervisor and informs the Commander of CGPC “directly by written communication … if the official copy of the OER has not been received 90 days after the end to the reporting period.” Personnel Manual, Articles 10.A.2.c.2.f. The Board finds that the applicant has failed to prove that his rating chain...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2002-101
The third OER that the applicant received is the disputed OER. SUMMARY OF APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS The applicant alleged that the disputed OER is invalid because it was not pre- pared by his published rating chain; an unqualified civilian was allowed to rate him as his supervisor; the supervisor failed to keep a record of his performance during the evaluation period; he received no mandatory counseling sessions at the beginning and end of the period; and the OER’s numerical marks are...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2002-103
In response to the applicant's OER reply, the supervisor stated that he received direct input from the applicant previous supervisor, who had been the applicant's supervisor for 40% of the reporting period. There are statements from the LT and CWO4 that the reporting officer treated the applicant abusively at a QMB meeting. However, it was the CO's meeting and not that of the reporting officer.
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2002-134
This final decision, dated April 8, 2003, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct three officer evaluation reports (OERs) in his record by including recommendations for promotion in block 11, where the reporting officer (RO) makes comments about an officer’s leadership and potential. In lieu of a recommendation for 2 Coast Guard officers are evaluated by a “rating chain” of three officers: the “supervisor,” who...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2002-141
Moreover, the Board found that the applicant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his rating chain unfairly delayed the submission of the disputed special OER; that the reporting officer was “disqualified” from carrying out OER duties; or that his rating chain was subjected to improper influence in preparing the disputed special OER. APPLICANT’S CURRENT ALLEGATIONS AND SUBMISSIONS The applicant alleged that his rating chain failed to submit a change of Reporting Officer...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2002-150
As proof of his contention, he stated that the marks on the disputed OER are lower than marks he received on his previous and subsequent OERs. In addition, the reporting officer, who was familiar with the applicant's performance, wrote in his section of the OER that he agreed with the supervisor's marks and comments. In this case, the supervisor stated that she consulted with both the previous supervisor as well as the reporting officer in preparing her portion of the disputed OER.
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2002-153
The Coast Guard stated that if the CY 2001 LCDR selection board had considered and selected the applicant for promotion to LCDR, he would have been promoted to that grade on July 1, 2002. it could correct the administrative error by promoting the applicant without further selection board consideration because his name had never been removed from the promotion list as a result of his 1999 selection, even though he declined that promotion. Accordingly, the Coast Guard recommended that this...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2002-169
On April 6, 19xx, the applicant was seen in follow-up by PA R. The medical notes indicate that the applicant was “feeling improved.” PA R also noted that the applicant’s “DM [diabetes mellitus] control [had] improved.” The plan of treatment was to perform more lab tests and increase the applicant’s dosage of Micronase if his condition was not well controlled. of the Personnel Manual defines “sick leave” as the “period of authorized absence granted to persons while under medical care and...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2003-011
At the time, his published rating chain was his station’s commanding officer (CO) as supervisor, the Group’s Senior Reserve Officer as reporting officer, and the Group Commander as reviewer. All Coast Guard records and actions by rating chain officials are accorded a presumption of regularity by the Board.6 However, the applicant has proved that the disputed OER was prepared by an invalid rating chain, in violation of Articles 10.A.2.b.2.b. The Board notes that the applicant’s prior OER in...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2003-023
He argued that his rating chain should not have referred to a third party’s gender in his OER and should not have mentioned conduct that was the subject of “an administrative investigation that was eventually dismissed as inappropri- ate behavior precipitated by myself and the other party.” The applicant further alleged that the low marks in the OER were inconsistent with his overall performance, as shown by the higher marks in the other OERs he has received. provides that “Commanding...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2003-025
He also requested that the Board correct his record to show that he reenlisted for six years on April 11, 20xx, his sixth active duty anniversary, to receive a Zone A selective reenlistment bonus (SRB). One of the petty officers wrote that, based on the applicant’s having four years’ prior active duty service in the Navy, he could have enlisted for two years, instead of four years but was erroneously advised by his recruiter at the time he enlisted in the Coast Guard. The applicant...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2003-040
states that “[t]he Reported-on Officer may reply to any OER regardless of its content and have this reply filed with the OER,” allowing a member the opportunity to “express a view of performance which may differ from that of a rating official.” submitted: Article 10.A.4.g.8. of the Personnel Manual, a reporting officer is permitted to base his or her evaluation of the ROO’s performance on “…other reliable reports or records.” The applicant has submitted no evidence beyond his own affidavit...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2003-064
This final decision, dated January 5, 2003, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record to make him entitled to an enlistment bonus upon completing “A” School to become a quartermaster (QM). CGPC stated that since October 2002, recruiters have been required to complete a form with new recruits in which they acknowledge that they have “not been offered any bonus incentive, either to enlist or attend a...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2003-089
However, the IO reported that although the coxswains involved, xxxxxx and xxxxxx, were “certified as UTB coxswains,” they were “not qualified in TPSB tactics in accor- dance with current PSU training standards.” The IO noted that during a “safety stand down” on June 20, xxxx, numerous areas of concern had been identified regarding the Boat and Engineering Divisions of the PSU, including a “noted ‘lack of discipline’ between coxswains conducting force on force drills”; “violations of safety...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2003-100
The applicant was discharged from the Coast Guard on April 27, 2001. The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on April 10, 2001. On April 10, 2001, the applicant also signed a page 7 advising him that drug use was against Coast Guard policy, that upon reporting to recruit training he would be tested by urinalysis for drug use, and that if his urine tested positive for drugs he would probably be discharged from the Coast Guard with a general discharge.
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2004-007
This final decision, dated July 29, 2004, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record by removing a very poor special officer evaluation report (SOER) that he received for his service as the Executive Officer (XO) of the cutter XXX from June 1 until October 8, 2001, when, he alleged, he was relieved of duty because of a personality conflict with his commanding officer (CO); by removing the regular OER that he received...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2004-056
The same physician’s assistant who had conducted the applicant’s separation physical noted that there was some tenderness around the spine but that the applicant had a free range of motion without pain and “5/5 strength.” He took xrays; prescribed Motrin and Flexeril for the pain; ordered an MRI, which he noted that the cutter’s health services technician “will coordinate”; and noted that the appli- cant was FFFD (fit for full duty). of the Medical Manual states that the physical standards...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2004-095
This final decision, dated January 13, 2005, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, an ensign in the Coast Guard Reserve, asked the Board to correct his record by expunging his failure of selection to lieutenant junior grade (LTJG); ordering the Coast Guard to reconvene a selection board to consider him for promotion; and, if he is selected for promotion, backdate his date of rank and award him backpay and allowances. The applicant alleged...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2004-105
The applicant alleged that he failed to be selected for promotion by the CWO4 selection board because of an incomplete military record. He claimed that an annual/semiannual OER (officer evaluation report) for the period June 1, 2000, to May 31, 2002, and a special OER for the period May 17, 2003, to September 30, 2003, were absent from his record and not reviewed by the selection board, although they had been validated by Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC) for placement in his...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2004-109
He stated that it was his understanding that the special OER would be submitted with the applicant's communication to the selection board once the message was published announcing the date the selection board was scheduled to convene and the candidates to be considered by the board. He further stated that the selection board convened before the unit's next drill date, which was November 15, 2003. The message announcing the CWO3 selection board was published only 10 days prior to the date...