CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2008-091
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. The applicant alleged that the Coast Guard discriminated against her based on her gender upon her return from maternity leave by assigning her to the Preparedness staff for work on the Area Maintenance Security Committee because she was a new mother, rather than returning her to her previous assignment. In addition, the applicant was not...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2008-096
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. The applicant stated that the Coast Guard denied his 2008 request to have the 18 days of leave restored, even though he qualified for SLA. VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On August 12, 2008, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted a memorandum in which he adopted the comments provided by Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2008-106
In support of this allegation, he submitted a statement from the commanding officer (CO) of the Training Center, who signed the 2003 OER as the Reporting Officer, even though he was not a designated member of the applicant’s rating chain: After reviewing the statements of personnel directly involved with [the applicant’s] performance during the marking period, I do not feel that the marks and comments in [his] OER for the above period accurately reflect his accomplishments during the period....
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2008-115
The reporting officer did not recommend the applicant for promotion in block 10 of the first disputed OER. The JAG also stated that a reasonable interpretation of the comments in block 10 is that the reporting officer’s promotion recommendation was based upon the applicant’s arrival to the unit for the planning officer assignment without the requisite experience and qualifications for the position, which would mean that the reporting officer based his promotion recommendation on an event...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2008-152
This final decision, dated February 26, 2009, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, who was a lieutenant commander in the Coast Guard Reserve,1 asked the Board to correct his military record by raising certain marks on his officer evaluation report (OER) for the period May 1, 2006 to February 28, 2007 (disputed OER). The disputed OER covers only the applicant’s performance while on Title 10 orders with the “Redeployment Assistance and...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2008-174
I am relieving this officer of responsibilities of the Operations Officer, Navigator and Tactical Action Officer. Since she was standing watch in the CIC during the transit, she could not see which chart the bridge team was using. states that on the comparison scale in an OER, a 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...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2009-013
4 All Coast Guard officers are evaluated by a “rating chain” of three superior officers, including the Supervisor, who assigns the marks for the first thirteen performance categories on an OER and supports them with written comments; the Reporting Officer—normally the Supervisor of the Supervisor—who assigns the last six marks, including the comparison scale mark, and supports them with written comments; and the Reviewer, who reviews the OER for consistency and compliance with regulation and...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2009-024
He argued that the reporting officer’s evaluation of his performance on the disputed OER proves that the mark describing him as merely a “strong performer,” rather than an “Exceptional performer” is erroneous and violated Article 10.A.1.b. However, every performance mark on the OER except for [the disputed] block 9 was a six or seven, and in block 10 of the OER he gives [the applicant] his strongest recommendation for senor service school. The applicant argued that the evaluation of his...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2009-029
He argued that these statements support a mark of at least 5 for “Workplace Climate.” Allegations about the Reporting Officer’s Comments in the Disputed OER The applicant alleged that the comment of the Reporting Officer about “issues” with the command climate leaving some members feeling alienated in block 7 of the disputed OER is vague, incomplete, and unduly prejudicial. He spoke with LT Y, the XO, who questioned the applicant’s decision- making; LT G, the outgoing Operations Officer,...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2009-034
This final decision, dated June 18, 2009, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS First Disputed Officer Evaluation Report (OER) The applicant asked the Board to correct his OER for the period May 1, 2005, to May 31, 2006 (first disputed OER) by raising his comparison scale mark in block 91 to show that he was marked as an “excellent performer; give toughest, most challenging leadership assignments” rather than as a “good performer; give tough challenging...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2009-071
Statement of the XO of the EMSST (Tab N) The XO stated that he was the CO of the MSST and his “additional responsibilities included conducting duties as assigned in the functional role of Executive Officer of the EMSST.” As the CO of the MSST, he served as the supervisor and the reporting officer of the disputed OER. (Tab X) some work to the Operations Officer. They never are for any operational CG unit.
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2009-175
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. This final decision, dated March 11, 2010, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct her officer evaluation report (OER) for the period May 1, 2005, to June 30, 2006, by adding her Commendation Medal as an attachment. CGPSC stated that the evaluation period for the...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2009-210
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. His OER for the period March 28, 2006, through April 30, 2007—his fifth and last from the FIST—shows that he attended 56 of 56 scheduled drills during this period and performed no active duty.4 The Chief of the Intelligence Branch, LCDR A, served as both the supervisor and reporting officer on the rating chain for this OER and assigned him...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2009-217
PSC recommended that PSC serve as the reviewer for the OER and that the beginning date for the immediate subsequent OER be amended. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to the relief recommended by the Coast Guard, which is that a copy of the OER be included in his PDR, once it is signed by PSC as the reviewer. The application of XXXXXXXXXXXXX, USCG, for correction of his military record is granted as follows: ORDER The Coast Guard shall include a copy of the OER for the period February 1,...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2009-230
The reporting officer’s letter further stated that the NJP aside, “the applicant’s achievements and performance this period were not remarkable,” and that “If anything, [the applicant’s] final marks were higher, not lower, than what was merited based on his performance.” The reporting officer stated that taking everything into account, “a mark of 3 (“Fair performer: recommended for increased responsibility”) was the correct mark in block 9 (Comparison scale).” PSC stated that the reporting...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2009-232
The captain who served as the Sector Commander and reporting officer for the disputed OER stated that when the sector was stood up the applicant’s assigned position title was changed from the Chief of the Operations Prevention Department at MSO Xxxxxxxx to Chief of the Prevention Department for the sector. The PSC noted that the reporting officer stated that the applicant’s duties during the evaluation period “did not include the authorities and responsibilities inherent in Command.” The...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2009-249
The applicant stated that under 33 C.F.R. The PRRB noted that CDR X had submitted a statement saying that “there are several presentations of fact and conclusion within [the applicant’s] application that are not accurate, based on my knowledge.” With respect to the applicant’s alleged supervisory relationship with LTJG X, the PRRB wrote that as the Operations Officer, the applicant was the Watch Captain of the VTS and noted the comment that she “‘oversaw the watch standing and...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2010-022
For exam- ple, he stated that the disputed OER impermissibly comments on his performance outside of the evaluation period because it states that he “required 19 of 23 months to qualify Underway EOW” (Engineering Officer of the Watch), while the evaluation period lasted only a year. I have no personal knowledge that he ever served as DCA on [the cutter].” He also stated that the applicant was not assigned any non- engineering related collateral duties and “his involvement was minimized to...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2010-031
The applicant alleged that he learned that the members of the substitute rating chain were close associates of the CO of the cutter and “may have been involved in the effort to suppress information concerning the [migrant interdiction] incident.” The applicant alleged that the Reporting Officer and Reviewer who prepared the first disputed OER were biased against him because his father had threatened the Reviewer with legal action and had reported both officers to Headquarters officials in...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2010-038
The applicant argued that under Article 10.A.2.g.b of the Personnel Manual the reporting officers were disqualified from his rating chain because they could not objectively and fairly evaluate him.1 First Disputed OER The applicant alleged that the reporting officer for the first disputed OER was biased, prejudiced, and hostile towards him, which led the reporting officer to write unfair and damaging comments in the OER. * * * [The applicant] states . The Coast Guard found, and the Board...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2010-092
Although, the marks, comments and comparison scale mark were substantially lower on the SOER than those on his previous OER, rather than stating in block 2 that the SOER was submitted to document performance notably different from the previous reporting period, the rating chain only cited the pertinent provision and then explained that the SOER was submitted because of a “loss of confidence in [the applicant’s] ability to effectively perform assigned duties” In this regard, the Board notes...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2010-093
With regard to scheduling morale events, the applicant stated that the Morale Committee was not his responsibility; that he passed the proposed dates for morale events on March 11 and April 11, 2008, to his supervisor, CDR X, and to CAPT X’s administrative assistant at a meeting of Department Heads on February 27, 2008; and that CAPT X learned he had done so before she prepared the disputed OER. The applicant’s second OER as the Xxxxxx Department Head, dated March 31, 2007, was his first as...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2010-097
The comment, which supports a low mark of 3 in the performance category “Responsibility,”1 states the following: “Had to be counseled on several occasions to comply w/ own dependent support memo.” The applicant alleged that the comment should be removed because it is prohibited under the Personnel Manual.2 VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD In response to the applicant’s request, the Officer Personnel Management branch of the Personnel Service Center (PSC) advised the applicant on May 28, 2010, that...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2010-110
the commanding officer (CO) asked me, ‘help the XO [executive officer] do his job.’” The XO, a commander, was the applicant’s supervisor for the disputed OER. Disputed OER The disputed OER states that the applicant reported to the unit on June 8, 2007, as the Chief of the Intelligence Division. The CO also stated the following: 2.b.
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2011-003
The PSC also stated that there was nothing pretextual about the applicant’s assignment to the cutter since it was his permanently assigned unit, and NJP was imposed in accordance with Article 1.A.4.a. The Board begins its analysis in every case by presuming that an appli- cant’s military record is correct and fair, and the applicant bears the burden of proving by a pre- 3. ponderance of the evidence that the OER is erroneous or unjust.1 Absent specific evidence to the contrary, the Board...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2011-005
leave when they reenlist indefinitely. The PSC stated that the Coast Guard’s policy is “to provide members the opportunity to sell leave before entering into [an indefinite reenlistment] contract. Effective 1 September 2008, members who are currently serving on an indefinite reenlistment contract are authorized to enter into a new indefinite reenlistment, one time, during a career for the purpose of selling leave.
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2011-007
The applicant stated that for 2 of the 13 years Capt H served as his supervisor for the disputed OERs. For the reasons discussed below, the Board finds that the applicant has submitted insufficient evidence to prove that Capt H was biased against the applicant in the disputed OERs; that YN1 B influenced Capt H to give the applicant erroneous and/or unjust OERs; that Capt H influenced the reporting officer to mark the applicant unjustly or erroneously on the disputed OER; or that Capt H...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2011-010
He alleged that during this period, his sea pay was stopped because on July 21, 2010, someone made an erroneous entry in the Direct Access database indicating that he had been transferred from the CGC BUCKTHORN to a shore unit. The Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant relief because the Executive Petty Officer of the cutter has confirmed that the applicant “was subject to an erroneous reassignment from his cutter billet to a shore based billet and then back to his cutter...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2011-017
He contended that a person who is involuntarily recalled to active duty is entitled to a DD 214 upon his or her release from that period of active duty. He stated that it is in the interest of justice to consider his application if more than 3 years have passed since he discovered the error because “[a]s a service member, I performed my duties as required in accordance with the UCMJ and the oath I had taken upon enlistment into the armed forces.” He also stated that during “the hurricane...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2011-035
The PRRB found that prior to the reporting period for the OER, several officers who served on the bridge as Officer of the Day discussed the offensive content of the quote book, gave the quote book to the AOO “for disposition,” and “rightfully assumed the issue was resolved.” The PRRB found that the CO, who served as the Reviewer for LTJG X’s OER, found the quote book in April 2009 and “wrongfully based her view of the applicant’s performance on the date she personally discovered the quote...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2011-055
An Annex G, which the appli- cant and her recruiter signed on August 16, 2010, shows that she agreed to a 6-year enlistment to be able to start active duty as an E-3. The Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant relief because the record supports the applicant’s allegations and her recruiter has affirmed that she was enlisted for 6 years “with the full understanding that she was enlisting as an E-3 … [A]t MEPS somehow the [enlistment contract] was incorrectly entered in as E-1 and...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2011-063
In this regard, the Board notes that PSC correctly redacted any mention of the applicant’s 165-day hospitalization from the disputed OER because Article 10.A.4.f. Although the applicant was not observed for 165 days of the reporting period, the Personnel Manual does not authorize a command to submit a continuity OER under the circumstances presented here. of the Personnel Manual, a command may submit a continuity OER for an active duty LCDR, such as the applicant, when the reporting period...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2011-064
The applicant alleged that the OER was prepared extremely late; that his first Supervisor during the evaluation period failed to provide a draft OER to his new Supervisor, who completed the OER; that the marks he received were caused by a poor command climate created by the commanding officer (CO) of the Sector; that the OER fails to show that he received a Commen- dation Medal; that the marks and comments in the disputed OER are inconsistent and inaccurate; and that the OER unjustly caused...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2011-073
Supervisor’s Statement The supervisor stated that the disputed OER is a true and accurate record of the applicant’s performance for the period under review. Reporting Officer’s Statement The reporting officer stated that the disputed OER is an accurate assessment of the applicant’s performance for the period under review. If support were needed for this mark, which it is not, the Board notes that both the supervisor and reporting officer commented on the applicant’s failure to manage his...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2011-082
d. I do not believe [the applicant’s] statement that he did not know that the quote book was on the bridge during the marking period. There was one book. Rating chain officials must base their marks and comments in an OER only on a reported-on officer’s performance during the reporting period, and they may not comment on “performance or conduct which occurred outside the reporting period.” 9 Therefore, if the applicant was unaware that the quote book had been returned to the bridge during...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2011-095
The PSC stated that relief should be denied because the applicant was guaranteed and could have attended OS “A” School to receive the bonus but “freely chose” to accept an offer to attend EM “A” School instead. However, all of the documentation showing the promises made to him on the day he enlisted indicates that he was guaranteed attendance at OS “A” School and a $4,000 enlistment bonus if he actually graduated from OS “A” School and served in the OS rating. The Board notes that the...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2011-118
The applicant alleged that when his record was reviewed by the retention board on July 7, 2010, a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) he had been awarded by the Navy on June 22, 2010, was not in his record. The applicant argued that his evidence also proves that although the Coast Guard received the MSM from the Navy on or about June 22, 2010, the Coast Guard failed to forward a copy of it to him, as it should have, and therefore deprived him of the opportunity to contact RPM to ensure that the...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2011-120
After his release from active duty, the applicant served in the Reserve. § 1552(b), an application for correction of a military record must be filed within three years after the applicant discovers the alleged error or injustice. Although the applicant stated that he discovered the alleged error in December 2010, the Board finds that he should have discovered it in the 1970s because he was diagnosed with sarcoidosis in the 1970s and was told at that time that his condition could have been...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2011-125
He also marked the applicant in the third block to the right on the comparison scale as a “fair performer; recommended for increased responsibility” and responsibilities in block 10 of disputed OER, as follows: The RO officer described the applicant’s potential for assuming greater leadership roles [The applicant] performed required number of drills & ADT-AT time during this 2-year evaluation period. VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On August 25, 2011, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2011-126
The applicant alleged that his CO was the subject of a command climate investigation he helped to instigate and that as a result of the investigation, she was relieved of command. It shows that the XO of the patrol boat, who assigned the first 13 performance marks as the appli- cant’s supervisor, was also a LTJG. Declaration of the XO as the Applicant’s Supervisor The XO, who is currently the CO of another patrol boat, stated that the marks assigned to the applicant in the disputed OER...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2011-179
He alleged that the OER is a product of bias and tremendous hostility on the part of the commanding officer (CO) of the cutter, who prepared the disputed OER.1 The applicant alleged that in May 2007, after he had served as XO for about a year, the commanding officer of his cutter “was involved in an alcohol-related incident and was imme- diately relieved for cause.”2 The applicant served as acting commanding officer until the new CO reported aboard on July 11, 2007. However, the commanding...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2011-198
This final decision, dated March 28, 2012, is approved and signed by the three duly SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, a lieutenant (LT) on active duty, asked the Board to remove from his record a special officer evaluation report (SOER) with low marks1 covering his service from June 1 to October 13, 2009, when he was serving as Xxxxx xxxxx to a XXXXX; a memorandum documenting substance abuse screening, dated November 6, 2009; and a letter from the XXXXX (the...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2011-201
On January 26, 2009, the CO sent a memorandum to the Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC), with the applicant listed as an addressee, recommending that the applicant’s promotion be delayed due to his poor judgment in making inappropriate and disrespectful comments toward a pregnant enlisted member on two separate occasions.1 The letter also noted that the applicant failed to complete human relations/sensitivity training despite 1 Article 5.A.13.f.1. The reporting officer...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2011-215
However, even with the corrected record, the applicant was not selected for promotion by the PY 2012 CDR selection board. With regard to the PY 2012 selection board, the Coast Guard stated that the applicant had a correct record before that board and still was not selected for promotion. In contrast, the applicant argued that his PY 2012 failure of selection for promotion to CDR should be removed because, even though the error had been corrected and even though the Coast Guard does not...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2012-032
states that a “derogatory OER” is any OER that contains at least one lowest possible mark of 1 in any performance category or a mark of “Unsatisfactory” on the Comparison Scale and documents “adverse performance or conduct which results in the removal of a member form his or her primary duty or position.” PSC stated that the disputed OERs were properly prepared as “derogatory” reports in accordance with these requirements and denied that the disputed OERs state that the applicant sexually...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2012-059
The JAG stated that based upon the investigation and letter of censure, the applicant (and not any other officer) was responsible for the conflict that existed in the workplace climate during the period covered by the disputed OER. The supervisor stated that the applicant was given a letter of censure by the Sector Commander, in which the applicant was told that “he would not currently be recommended for promotion to the next higher pay grade, but since he was at the mid-point of his...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2012-084
PSC believes the comment does not reflect the views of the reporting officer.” PSC stated that prior to evaluating the applicant in the disputed OER, the reporting officer was unduly influenced by the CO in completing three other OERs for officers at the unit. Reporting Officer’s Affidavit In addition to comments discussed in the advisory opinion, the reporting officer stated that he supported the applicant’s contention that his assigned marks in “speaking and listening” and “workplace...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2012-100
PSC stated that it is clear from the application that the applicant has a different opinion of his own performance, but it “believes the disputed OER reflects a succinct picture of perfor- mance as viewed by the rating chain during the period of report.” Declaration of the Applicant’s Supervisor The applicant’s supervisor, who as the chief of the District’s Waterways Management Branch prepared the blocks 3, 4, and 5 of the disputed OER, stated that the XXXX’s fuel account did “go into the...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2012-109
The applicant alleged that he should have received a mark of 6 for “Directing Others.” He alleged that the supporting comments entered by the XO meet the written standard for a mark of 6. Regarding the disputed OER, the XO said that the CO did influence him to lower the applicant’s marks “to some degree.” She did not specify exactly what marks the XO should assign but told him that the AOps was responsible for [the] perceived performance shortfalls of those in his department. The XO stated...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2012-114
This final decision, dated February 1, 2013, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his record by raising his comparison scale mark from the third block to the fifth block on the rating scale in section 91 on his officer evaluation report (OER) for the period July 1, 2009 to May 11, 2010 (disputed OER). The applicant received the disputed OER while serving as the Support Department Head (SUPPO) on a Coast Guard...