CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2004-115
2003).” STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT Statement by the Engineering Officer, LT D LT D, who served as the applicant’s supervisor for the marking periods of all three disputed OERs, stated that the applicant was a “very capable officer with great potential.” LT D stated that soon after arriving on board, the CO told him that the applicant was “a problem that needed to be fixed.” He stated that it was clear that the CO did not like the applicant “on a personal level” and “was incapable...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2004-119
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. The Coast Guard also committed an injustice by not publishing the message announcing the convening date for the selection board and identifying the applicant as a candidate in a timely manner. The applicant’s failure of selection for promotion to CWO4 before the 2003 CWO4 Reserve selection board shall be removed from his record.
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2004-120
2 The Board interprets the applicant's request as one for the removal of his failure of selection for promotion to CWO3 and, if he is selected for promotion to CWO4 by the first selection board to consider him based on a corrected record that his date of rank be adjusted to the date he would have received if he had been selected by the 2003 CWO4 selection board. TJAG adopted the memorandum on the case prepared by Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC) as the advisory opinion,...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2004-159
He alleged that he was told in private that the new rating chain was intended to make the applicant “better respond to tasking and end his complaints that he was getting mixed messages from [LCDR B] and me.” How- ever, he alleged, the applicant’s performance did not improve, and the disputed OER “was an accurate and fair reflection of his actual performance.” CDR C alleged that none of the marks or comments in the disputed OER were assigned because of any ethics complaint regarding “alleged...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2004-161
The applicant stated that he reported the incident to the Coast Guard. CGPC stated that the special board reached its recommendation based mainly on the endorsement of the applicant's then-office chief that the applicant did not intentionally violate the Honor Code. The Board notes again that the Honor Code, provided by the applicant, makes no distinction between intentional and unintentional acts and neither did the Honor Committee when it found the applicant guilty of plagiarism.
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2004-179
The applicant alleged that in March 2003, she received an email from the Coast Guard Personnel Command stating that an OER was due for her for the period ending May 31, 2003. Moreover, she alleged, during those four months, LCDR X, who assumed LCDR K’s billet on July 1, 2003, acted as her supervisor on several occasions instead of CDR S. The applicant further argued that if the alteration of her rating chain was legiti- mate due to LCDR K’s alleged unavailability, then the end date of her...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2004-184
again' to 'who knows if [the applicant] will even be here, he might be 'sick again.'" He stated that despite his frustration at the CGPC obtained a statement from the supervisor, who wrote that the applicant did not perform his duties at the level expected by the Coast Guard during the period in question, despite his claim that the supervisor unfairly focused on his medical conditions. The applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his supervisor, who was also...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2004-186
of the Pay and Personnel Manual (HIRSICINST M1000.6A) The applicant's record contains the following copy of a page 7 with the commanding officer's (CO's) signature: "Entry Type: Performance and Discipline (P&D-8) "Reference: Section 8-B and 8-M, Personnel Manual, (M1000.6 (series)) "Responsible Level: Unit "Entry: "19NOV99: Necessary article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and the Code of Conduct explained this date as required by sections 8-B and 8-M, Personnel Manual,...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2004-192
The JAG stated that the applicant’s command “properly followed [Coast Guard] regulations” in awarding the applicant NJP and that the collateral consequences of the NJP—including the disputed OER and the revocation of his temporary commission— “were carried out properly after affording Applicant all the due process rights to which he was entitled.” The JAG stated that under Article 15 of the UCMJ, NJP is a means for COs to deal with minor violations promptly and administratively and thus...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2005-030
From June 8, 2000, to September 11, 2002, he was the air station’s Communications Officer and Command Security Officer (CSO), and as such was responsible for the security of the unit’s classified materials and head of the Communications Division, which consisted of himself and one petty officer. The applicant’s OER for the period, June 1, 2000, to May 31, 2001, shows that in addition to these collateral duties and his primary service as a first pilot and operations duty officer, the...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2005-050
In addition, the applicant alleged that the supervisor and reporting officer failed to provide documentation supporting the grades and comments in the OER and that he was not counseled on the OER. of the Personnel Manual states that the supervisor "[p]rovides 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." The Personnel Manual places responsibility on the applicant to initiate...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2005-053
This final decision, dated November 17, 2005, is signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to remove from his record an officer evaluation report (OER) covering his performance during a short tour as the Operations Officer of the Xxxxxx, a high-endurance cutter, from May 1, 1998, to April 27, 1999. The applicant argued that the CO vio- lated the Personnel Manual when he delayed the OER by a year, failed to include a comment on the applicant’s...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2005-075
that the Supervisor was responsible for assigning, as well as the recommended marks and comments that [the Supervisor] provided for the Reporting Officer sections . [The Supervisor] further states that he felt at the time that the marks assigned by the [Reporting Officer] were low based on his own observations, and although he felt [the Reporting Officer] actions were overly harsh, as his direct Supervisor and [the Applicant's] Reporting Officer he had every right to change the marks. [The...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2005-076
Regarding the applicant’s allegation (5), the Supervisor pointed to the following (see summaries below): a supporting a statement by the Deputy Commander; an e-mail from CWO X concerning the applicant’s “work ethic”; an e-mail from CPO Y to CWO Z about the applicant’s “very different work schedule”; and an e-mail from a lieutenant dated October 26, 2001, indicating that the applicant had skipped an important meeting with her and that CWO X and another member had told her that the applicant...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2005-101
The applicant explained the basis of his request for his integration in the regular Coast Guard as follows: At the time of the first promotion board, Applicant was a reserve officer serving on an extended active duty contract. It is most likely that applicant's record before the PY04 Active Duty CDR Selection Board was burdened by Applicant's voluntary decision to leave active duty and his time not observed while in the IRR. In this regard, we note that the applicant's record showed...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2005-162
This command determined that alcohol was not a factor in the incident. follows: The reporting officer evaluated the applicant's potential for future service as While [the applicant's] performance of duties was satisfactory during the reporting period, his personal conduct while off-duty was questionable and demonstrates a reluctance to acknowledge his responsibilities as an officer when he is not at work or on duty. The Coast Guard recommends, and the Board agrees, that the disputed...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2006-003
The Group Commander, his commanding officer (CO) had him removed from his duties as Deputy Group Commander on September 22, 2004. # CATEGORY 3a Planning and Preparedness MARK WRITTEN COMMENTS 3 3b Using Resources 3c Results/ Effectiveness 3d Adaptability 3e Professional Competence 4a Speaking and Listening 4b Writing 5a Looking Out for Others 5b Developing Others 5c Directing Others 5d Teamwork 5e Workplace Climate 5f Evaluations 4 3 3 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 6 3 8a Initiative 8b Judgment 8c...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2006-030
In Godwin, the Coast Guard determined that ten of the twelve eligible RPA officers on active duty were not available to serve as members of the Py94 (promotion year 1994) RPA Selection Board for the following reasons: Three officers served on the previous year's board; one officer was being considered for continuation by the same selection board; one officer's record was inadequate; two officers were too junior and classmates of the candidate being considered by the board; two officers had...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2006-035
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2006-036
The applicant alleged that the prior Chief of Staff, her properly designated RO, left the command on December 1, 2000, without pre- paring an OER, which she alleged was required by regulation.1 She argued that if he had done so, the disputed OER would probably not have been prepared.2 The applicant further alleged that she was unaware during the evaluation period that CAPT X would serve as her RO. of the Personnel Manual, which states that “[i]f the Reporting Officer changes and a complete...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2006-065
This final decision, dated November 21, 2006, is signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant asked the Board to make the following corrections to his military record: remove the officer evaluation report (OER) for the period from June 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003 (first disputed OER); remove the regular continuity OER1 for the period from July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004 (second disputed OER) and direct that the concurrent OER for the same period replace the regular...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2006-085
Additionally, he hosted a meeting of the Standardiza- tion Team Chiefs and Headquarters program managers at xxxxx School to review the … Manual … [The applicant] encouraged and supported professional growth of xxxxx personnel. The reporting officer’s part of the OER includes block 7, in which the reporting officer com- ments on the supervisor’s evaluation of the officer; block 8, in which the reporting offi- cer assigns numerical marks for the categories “Initiative,” “Judgment,”...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2006-085-TechAmend
of the Personnel Manual, the officer who served as the applicant’s reporting officer for all but the last three weeks of the evaluation period was required to prepare an OER for the applicant before leaving the unit but failed to do so. of the Personnel Manual “in that marks and comments throughout the disputed OER would likely have been better had the correct officer exercised his full authority as the applicant’s reporting officer.” The Board granted relief by ordering the Coast Guard to...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2006-104
On his OERs, his commanding officer strongly recommended him for promotion and noted the applicant’s desire to serve as the XO or CO of a cutter. On his first OER in this position, the applicant received all marks of 4 and 5 and his CO’s recommendation for promotion. On his OERs for this work, he has received high marks of 5, 6, and 7 in the performance categories, marks of 5 on the comparison scale, and his reporting officers’ strong recommendations for command afloat and promotion to commander.
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2006-149
The applicant stated that on December 19, 2003, the operations officer told her that the XO had signed her waiver request and given it to the CO, but that since she did not have an approved waiver she was not excused from the flu shot. The applicant did not state whether Dr. S recommended that she not take the flu shot while on the medication. The JAG stated that the applicant's failure to follow the direct order from her command was reflected in the mark of 3 in judgment on her OER and...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2006-154
The applicant stated that the counseling she received at the time of the incident and the comments in block 10 of the SOER indicated that the violation was a one time incident and that it would not affect her future Coast Guard career. The reporting officer stated that due to the appearance that a romantic relationship may have existed between the applicant and the petty officer, the applicant was counseled on Coast Guard policy which prohibits such relationships between commissioned...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2006-168
He stated that he has one OER covering the period February 1, 2001, through August 31, 2001; nothing covering the period September 1, 2001, through January 31, 2002, during which time he was attending college as duty under instruction (DUINS); and another OER covering the period February 2, 2002, through August 12, 2002. Therefore, the Coast Guard should be ordered to fill in the empty “not observed circles.” Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be granted by adding a new DUINS OER...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2007-027
CGPC stated that the applicant did not submit his OER input to his rating chain within 21 days of the end of the evaluation period as required by Article 10.A.2.c.2.f. states that it is the responsibility of each commanding officer to “[e]ncourage supervisors and reporting officers to properly counsel subordinates by providing them timely feedback at the end of each reporting period and providing copies of completed OERs to them prior to submission to the OER administrator.” Article...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2007-031
On June 8, 2005, the XO of the parent MSO sent a letter to the Assistant Chief of the MSO’s Investigations Department, a retired Coast Guard LCDR, assigning him to serve “as the preliminary investigating officer [PIO] for the alleged UCMJ offenses that occurred on various dates between July 2004 and May 2005 and are recorded on the enclosed CG Form 4910.” Temporary Relief for Cause On June 16, 2005, the XO, who was then Acting CO of the MSO, recommended to the District Commander that the...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2007-042
Under performance of duties in the supervisor’s portion of the SOER, the applicant received a mark of 4 in adaptability; marks of 3 in planning and preparedness, using resources, and professional presence; and a mark of 2 in results/effectiveness.2 In support of the below average marks in this section of the SOER, the supervisor wrote: [The applicant] consistently failed to set priorities for self & subordinates to meet deadlines & on numerous occasions failed to provide CMD w/plan of attack...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2007-060
The applicant alleged that his removal from the list was unjust because a) Commander, CGPC based his negative recommendation on an assumption that the applicant would have failed of selection in 2004 had the selection board seen the SOER and the Punitive Letter of Admonition; b) the Secretary was not aware of the positive recommendation of the special board; c) the Secretary abused his discretion by removing him from the list, contrary to the special board’s recommendation, without written...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2007-099
1 However, the PRRB’s recommendation, which was approved by the Acting Deputy Director of Personnel on June 19, 2006, has apparently not yet been implemented since the official Personal Data Record received by the Board from the Coast Guard contains the version of the OER that describes the applicant’s title as an “Assistant Section Chief, Weekend Duty Team,” rather than “Assistant Chief, Port Security Department.” The PRRB ordered the Coast Guard to replace the supervisor’s section of the...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2007-113
APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS In the Workplace Climate category (block 5e), the applicant disputed the mark of 3 supported by the following disputed comments: “Kept FN assigned to cutter months after being directed by D17 to ADASSIGN mbr for medical reasons, creating extra burden for the crew.” “Several minor human relations and work-life incidents on cutter indicative of low morale and lack of leadership role model.” “PO promotion delayed due to non-completion of enlisted marks.” In block 7 of...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2007-120
2 Officers are evaluated by a “rating chain,” which normally includes a Supervisor, who is normally the person to whom the Reported-on Officer reports on a daily basis and who completes the first 13 numerical marks in an OER and their supporting comments; a Reporting Officer, who is normally the Supervisor’s Supervisor and who com- pletes the remaining marks and comments in an OER; and the Reviewer, who is normally the Reporting Officer’s The applicant stated that LT D gave her a mediocre...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2007-121
Officer did not evaluate others during reporting period. In Block 10, the reporting officer did not recommend the applicant for promotion, operational assignments, or positions of increased responsibility, and instead wrote, “His leadership and professional skills are poor.” The reviewer authenticated the OER without comment. The reporting officer declared that the disputed OER was based on the applicant’s performance as measured against the OER standards expected of all Coast Guard...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2007-124
7 ○ The following written comment in the OER supports the mark of 3: “Displayed lack of motivation & leadership to upgrade to Aircraft Cdr, well beyond the normally expected timeline of peers; aviation status terminated, reassigned to duties not involving flight ops.” The applicant stated that he was designated as an HH-60 First Pilot on December 4, 2002, and that the “normal progression from HH-60 First Pilot to Aircraft Commander is 18 months.” By May 20, 2003, he alleged, less than six...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2007-125
The applicant denied that she had consensual sexual relations on board a Coast Guard unit with an enlisted member. Commanding Officer’s (CO) Comments on the NJP Appeal On May 12, 2004, the applicant’s commanding officer (CO) recommended that the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District (Commander) deny the applicant’s appeal. That based on the statements given by [the applicant] and statements contained in the CGIS report which were not challenged during the mast proceeding, I find that the...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2007-137
The first two were at the unit in which she received the disputed OER. of the Personnel Manual states that the reporting officer shall fill in the circle that most closely reflects the reporting officer’s ranking of the reported-on officer relative to all other officers of the same grade the reporting officer has known. While the comparison scale mark on the disputed OER was the lowest of all her OERs, the Board notes it was her very first OER as an officer/ensign from which she recovered...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2007-138
This final decision, dated March 13, 2008, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant, a lieutenant commander (LCDR) in the Coast Guard Reserve, asked the Board to correct his officer evaluation report (OER) for the period June 1, 2005, to May 31, 2006, by • adding his days of active duty and number of inactive duty drills performed during the reporting period to the “Description of Duties” in the disputed OER; removing four derogatory sentences in block 5 of...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2007-140
The Disputed OER The OER covers a period when the applicant was assigned as a Coast Guard Command Center Duty Officer. The reporting officer further stated as follows: I had and have nothing against [the applicant]. Nothing in the statements from CDR D, LCDR H, or JN proves that the applicant should have had higher marks on the disputed OER or that the OER comments are inaccurate.
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2007-146
Regarding the complaint about his OSF (officer support form) in the disputed OER, the applicant stated that he submitted it to his Supervisor on March 7, 2004, well before the end of the evaluation period and yet “did not receive any request for amplifying information, clarifica- tion or inform[ation] of any discrepancies from [the Supervisor or Senior Reserve Officer] until May 9, 2004, when some additional clarifying information was requested.” Regarding the Reporting Officer’s comment...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2007-160
This final decision, dated April 30, 2008, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant, who resigned his commission as a lieutenant junior grade (LTJG) in the Coast Guard on August 1, 2004, asked the Board to correct his record by (a) removing two officer evaluation reports (OERs) covering his service aboard a cutter as a deck watch officer from October 1, 2002, to January 31, 2003, and from February 1, 2003, to July 13, 2003; (b) removing all documentation of...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2007-161
This final decision, dated March 27, 2008, is signed by the three duly appointed members APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record by removing an Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period August 1, 2001, to June 1, 2002 (disputed OER) and by replacing it with the draft OER he submitted as an enclosure to his application. In this regard, the JAG argued that the applicant was selected by the 2007 selection board with the disputed OER in his record. ...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2007-196
The reporting officer further stated: In block 7 of the OER, the reporting officer concurred with the supervisor’s marks and In the leadership section of the disputed OER, the applicant received a mark of 6 in “looking out for others,” marks of 5 in “developing others,” “directing others,” and “evaluations,” and marks of 3 in “workplace climate” and “teamwork.” The supervisors wrote the following in the comment block: [The applicant] was presented opportunities to learn critical new skills...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2008-009
Therefore, CGPC concluded that a continuity OER should be prepared to cover the applicant’s performance from August 1, 2004, to April 30, 2005, since there is no OER for this period in his record. of the Personnel Manual requires all periods of an officer’s active duty to be evaluated on an OER. [ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] ORDER The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his military record is granted as follows: Francis H. Esposito A continuity...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2008-015
This final decision, dated July 24, 2008, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to enter a “continuity OER” (officer evaluation report) in his record. How- ever, in response to a query from the BCMR staff, the applicant stated that his duties were the same during the period July 1, 2003, to June 18, 2004, as they were during his prior evaluation period from July 1, 2002, to June 30, 2003. ORDER The application of...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2008-018
Most of the performance categories on the SOER are marked “not observed,” but the low marks of 2 for “Results/Effectiveness” and “Professional Competence” are supported by the following comments by the XO of the XXX squadron, who was the applicant’s Supervi- sor:5 Relieved of primary duty as a flight instructor pilot due to unsatisfactory performance in the Fixed- wing Instructor Training Unit (FITU) instructor training syllabus, a demonstrated lack of stan- dardization, and an attitude not...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2008-023
In recommending relief, CGPC stated the following: In [this] case, Reviewer Comments and a comparison scale mark were required because the applicant’s Reporting Officer is a Navy Officer (please note that my staff attempted but could not obtain a statement from the Navy officer who served as the reporting Officer for the disputed OER). Additionally, there is nothing in the marks and comments on the disputed OER that explains why the applicant dropped three places on the comparison scale...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2008-066
On March 19, xxxx, the RO forwarded to the District Commander the report of the investigation into the grounding of the XXXX on December 2, xxxx. In light of CDR L’s assessment of the RO’s behavior on March 12, xxxx, when the applicant exercised her right to remain silent and consult an attorney; the EPO’s statement about receiving an email on March 12, xxxx, inviting the crew to attend a public mast the fol- lowing Friday; and the Family Advocacy Specialist’s description of the RO’s...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2008-071
of the Personnel Manual states that for each evaluation area, the supervisor shall review the reported-on officer’s performance and qualities observed and noted during the reporting period. The Coast Guard recommends, and the Board agrees, that the disputed OER should be removed from the applicant's record and replaced with a report for “continuity purposes only” because the officers who signed as supervisor and reporting officer on the disputed OER were not designated members of the...