DEXXRTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2000-036 
 
 
   

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 
425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  It was commenced on January 4, 2000, upon 
the BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s request for correction. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

This  final  decision,  dated  September  21,  2000,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  

APPLICANT’S REQUEST FOR RELIEF 

The applicant, a xxxxxxx, asked the Board to raise certain marks he received on 
an  Enlisted  Performance  Evaluation  Form  (EPEF)  for  his  work  at  the  xxxxxxx  from 
October 13, 1998, to February 20, 1999.  He also asked the Board to correct the disputed 
EPEF to show that his rating chain recommended him for advancement to xxxxxxx and 
to advance him directly to xxxxxxxxx.  

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

APPLICANT'S ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant alleged that the EPEF was erroneously prepared and that the offi-
cers  on  his  rating  chain1  were  biased  against  him.    He  alleged  his  rating  chain  was 
biased against him because he tried to prevent the officers’ verbal abuse of xxs, stop the 
constant use of foul language in the office, and improve morale in the office.  He alleged 
that his supervisor, the xxx, constantly demeaned the xxs with foul language and often 
did  so  in  the  presence  of  outsiders,  which  embarrassed  everyone  in  the  office.    He 
alleged that the xxx cursed so much and so loudly that the xxs frequently had to cover 
                                                 
1    Enlisted  members  are  evaluated  by  a  rating chain, which consists of a supervisor, who recommends 
evaluation marks; a marking official, who assigns the marks; and an approving official, who approves the 
EPEF. 

 
In addition, the applicant alleged that the XXX was biased against him because 
the applicant did not attend office “after hours” at the local pub.  He alleged that other 
xxs warned him he should go to the pub because the XXX “buddie[d] back up with [the 
staff] for treating [them] like crap in the office.”  However, he did not go because he had 
to take care of his children while his wife attended night classes and because the ciga-
rette smoke in the pub made his eyes water. 

 
The applicant also alleged that his marking official, LCDR x., who served as the 
xx Officer, was biased against him.  The applicant alleged that when he heard a rumor 
that LCDR x. sometimes leaked information to the media after receiving a “gag order” 
from the command or the Justice Department, he asked LCDR x . about it.  He alleged 
that LCDR x. admitted to leaking information by making anonymous phone calls but 
said he would deny it if the applicant ever told anyone. 

the mouth pieces of their phones so that people on the line could not hear the xxx’s foul 
language.  He also alleged that the XXX and others often cursed about their professional 
contacts  after  finishing  a  phone  call, which undermined professionalism in the office.  
The applicant stated that during occasional meetings with the XXX, he let him know his 
use of foul language was wrong and that he should use a different approach.   

 
The applicant alleged that the low marks he received in the disputed EPEF were 
erroneous and not reflective of the actual high quality of his work.  He alleged that his 
mark of 42 in the disputed EPEF for “professional/ specialty knowledge” was too low 
because he “demonstrated good knowledge of policies and procedures”; “consistently 
solved day-to-day technical problems” with e-mail, the duty list, and media relations; 
and  trained  the  four  xxs  he  supervised  how  to  use  desktop  publishing  and  digital 
imaging  software.    He  alleged  that  the  mark  of  4  for  “quality  of  work”  was  too  low 
because, fresh from school and with little guidance, he directed the redesign of xxxxxxx, 
which earned outstanding comments from other Coast Guard personnel. 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  his  mark  of  3  for  “monitoring  work”  was  too  low 
because  he  always  prioritized  tasks  and  reorganized  work  as  necessary,  enforced 
stricter  deadlines  in  the  production  of  xxxxxxxxx,  which  helped  the  office  run  more 
smoothly, and kept the XX Officer and the XXX up to date on all aspects of the work.  
He also alleged that his mark of 4 for “using resources” was too low.  He alleged that 
upon  his  arrival,  he  once  asked  the  XXX  where  he  could  find  the  office’s 
Correspondence Manuals.  The XXX responded, “You’re not at f**king school anymore 
and you're not at f**king Headquarters anymore.  You’re out in the real Coast Guard 
doing real f**king Coast Guard work.  Figure it out for yourself … .”  After getting that 
response, the applicant alleged, he asked someone else, found the manuals, reorganized 
                                                 
2  Enlisted members are marked on a scale of 1 to 7 (7 being best) in various categories of performance.  
The applicant challenged all but three marks he received in the disputed EPEF.  He did not challenge the 
mark of 5 he received for “communicating,” the mark of 5 he received for “developing subordinates,” or 
the mark of 4 he received for “responsibility.”   

them  to  improve  access,  purchased  more  manuals,  read  them,  and  prepared  outlines 
and tipsheets for his XXs.  
 
 
The applicant alleged that the mark of 4 for “safety” was too low because while 
at the XX Office, he presented a “xxxxxxxxxxx” report and helped others in the office 
raise their computer monitors to the proper height with old textbooks and dictionaries 
to save money.  He alleged that his mark of 4 for “stamina” was too low because he 
willingly worked overtime to get the job done.  For instance, he worked one weekend 
taking photographs at a xxxxxxxxxxx and he worked nights and weekends to produce 
an annual report. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that the mark of 4 for “directing others” was too low.  He 
stated that upon his arrival in October 1998, the XXs told him they needed him to act as 
a “go-between” for them and the XXX and XX Officer.  He alleged that he asked the 
unit’s education officer if he could attend leadership school but was told there were no 
openings.  Instead, the education officer recommended that he attend a Leadership and 
Management  School  roadshow  in  December.    He  attended  the  roadshow  and  used 
those skills to improve the rapport between the XXs and the XXX and XX Officer.  He 
alleged  that  his  mark  of  4  for  “working  with  others”  was  too  low  because  he  was 
always a team player and encouraged teamwork, as when he helped with a television 
feature about the xxxxxxxxxxx and when he persuaded two XXs to submit entries for 
the Military Photographer of the Year Contest. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that the mark of 3 for “evaluations” was too low because 
he always kept his superiors informed about the status and schedules of xxxxxxxx and 
always let his subordinates “know that they were doing a great job.”  He alleged that 
the  evaluation  system  at  the  XX  Office  needed  correction  because  neither  he  nor  his 
subordinates received mid-term evaluations.  He alleged that his mark of 4 for “work-
life  sensitivity/expertise”  was  too  low  because  he  counseled  many  people  to  further 
their  education,  informed  them  of  events,  and  thought  up  and  worked  weekends  to 
develop a monthly newsletter called “xxxxxxxxx,” which addressed housing and other 
local work-life issues in the xxxxxxxx area. 
 

The applicant alleged that the mark of 4 for “setting an example” was too low.  
He alleged that his XXs would verify the he was an outstanding role model.  He alleged 
that he voluntarily moved to work at the “service desk” beside the front door because 
he  thought  it  was  important  for  people  entering  the  office  to  see  something  besides 
cubicles and people’s backs.  He alleged that the mark of 4 for “military bearing” was 
too low because his “standards for uniform and grooming are always model material.”  
He  alleged  that  he  received  compliments  during  a  uniform  and  grooming  inspection 
and on Groundhog Shadow Day.  He further alleged that when he arrived, he was still 
using  the  nametag  showing  his  xxxxxxxxx  award  but  removed  it  after  the  XXX 
informed him he should not wear it.  He also alleged that the mark of 4 he received in 

“health and well-being” was too low because he worked out every day, rarely drank 
alcohol, and encouraged others to use the gym, stop smoking, and swim. 
 

The applicant alleged that the mark of 2 he received for “customs and courtesies” 
was  much  too  low.    He  alleged  that  he  was  very  courteous  to  everyone  and  always 
exercised military protocol.  He alleged that the mark of 4 he received for “respecting 
others” was also too low because he showed great respect for all people and was always 
courteous and sensitive to their feelings.  

 
The applicant alleged that the mark of 3 for “loyalty” was too low and contra-
dicted all of the work he has done for the Coast Guard, as indicated by the awards he 
has received.  He alleged that the mark of 4 for “human relations” was too low because 
he “actively campaigned against prejudicial actions (cursing problem).”  He alleged that 
he  frequently  brought  this  long-standing  problem  to  the  attention  of  the  XX  Officer, 
who said he was aware of the problem but did not stop it.  

 
The applicant also alleged that the mark of 3 for “adaptability” was too low.  He 
stated that he easily adapted when last-minute changes were required in xxxxxxx, when 
plans changed on Groundhog Shadow Day, when he was sent to photograph a survival 
swim in heavy surf, and in setting up a new photography studio with equipment that 
he had researched and purchased for the office. 

 
The applicant alleged that all of these low marks and his rating chain’s failure to 
recommend  him  for  advancement  were  caused  by  their  bias  against  him  due  to  his 
attempts  to  stop  the  verbal  abuse  and  correct  “xxxxxxxx  practices”  during  his  five 
months at the office.  He alleged that his record supports his allegation that his rating 
chain’s assessment of his performance and potential is erroneous and unfair.  Prior to 
serving at the XX Office, he had received the xxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxxx awards, and he 
had  been  selected  for  and  graduated  from  the  Coast  Guard’s  xxxxxxxx  Program.    In 
addition, the applicant alleged that after his transfer back to Headquarters, he received 
phone calls from the other XXs in the office, who reported that it was “just as bad as 
ever  out  there”  and  that  all  six  XXs  in  the  office  had  been  placed  on  administrative 
probation and were not recommended for advancement by the rating chain. 

 
The applicant presented no statements from colleagues in support of his allega-
tions.  He provided the phone number of the XX Office and suggested that the Board 
could verify his allegations by speaking with the XXs in the office. 
 

The applicant also alleged that he was never counseled concerning any poor per-
formance and that the disputed EPEF constituted an unfair surprise.  He alleged that he 
never received a “mid-period evaluation” as required by the Personnel Manual, which 
would have forewarned him of any problems and given him a chance to resolve them.  
Moreover, he alleged, the EPEF should have been prepared prior to his departure from 
the XX Office, but he never received it until after he was transferred to Headquarters.  

He  alleged  that  upon  his  departure  from  the office, he met with his marking official, 
LCDR  x.,  who  “had  nothing  but  praise  and  thankfulness  for  the  help  [the  applicant] 
provided  in turning the office around and getting the other xxxxxxx specialists ‘fired 
up’ to do their jobs.”  Therefore, he was shocked when he received the very poor EPEF 
almost  two  months  after  his  departure.    He  alleged  that  the  disputed  EPEF  was 
particularly  unfair  because  it  was  the  last  one  in  his  record  prior  to  the  service-wide 
examination. 
 

The applicant alleged that when he received the disputed EPEF, he called LCDR 
x. to try to get his marks raised, but his request was refused.  He alleged that when he 
decided to appeal the EPEF, someone advised him not to mention the “extreme, vulgar 
language” used in the office by the XXX and others because nobody would care.  He 
also  alleged  that  the  Coast  Guard’s  consideration  of  his  appeal  of  the  disputed  EPEF 
was disapproved after a long delay that violated regulation. 
 

SUMMARY OF  THE APPLICANT’S RECORD 

 
The applicant reenlisted in the Coast Guard on May 4, 1992, having previously 
 
served  five  years  and  four  months  on  active  duty  and  five  years  and  one  day  in  the 
Reserve.    His  initial  rank  was  SN-XX  (seaman-xxxxxxx;  pay  grade  E-3).    He  was 
assigned  to  work  in  the  xxxxxxxxx  at  Coast  Guard  Headquarters.    On  November  3, 
1992, he received an EPEF with one mark of 4; nine marks of 5; seven marks of 6; and 
two marks of 7.  He was advanced to XX3 (pay grade E-4). 
 
The EPEFs the applicant received as a XX3 are numbered 1 through 5 in the table 
 
below.  In 1995, he was advanced from XX3 to XX2.  The EPEFs he received as a XX2 are 
numbered  6  through  9  in  the  table  below.    His  record  contains  many  administrative 
entries documenting exceptional performance for which he received marks of 7 in his 
EPEFs.  He received a Coast Guard Achievement Medal for his work on xxxxxxxx from 
May 1992 through May 1997.  
 

On February 28, 1997, the applicant was advanced to XX1.  The EPEF numbered 
10 in the table below, dated May 29, 1997, is the first he received at this rank.  In June 
1997, the applicant was transferred from his unit at Coast Guard Headquarters to study 
xxxxxxx  at  an  xxxxxx.    He  did  not  receive  any  EPEFs  while  studying  at  the  institute 
from June 1997 through September 1998. 
 
 
On October 12, 1998, the applicant was assigned to serve at the XX Office for the 
xxxxxx  .    He  served  there  for  four  months  before  being  transferred  to  Coast  Guard 
Headquarters on February 20, 1999.  The disputed EPEF, number 11 in the table below, 
covered his service at the XX Office and was prepared after his departure.  On March 3, 
1999,  the  applicant’s  marking  official,  LCDR  x.,  made  an  administrative  entry  in  his 
record explaining the mark of 2 he received in the EPEF for “customs and courtesies” 
and his non-recommendation for advancement.  The entry states the following: 

 

[The  applicant’s]  dealing  with  superiors  in  both  the  officer  and  enlisted  corps  is  some-
times curt and non-professional.  He sometimes fails to acknowledge individuals by rank 
or with a professional greeting such as sir or chief, etc.  When involved with conversa-
tions on the telephone after he either received or provided the necessary information to 
individuals, he becomes curt and boisterous.  At times commenting to others in the office, 
that he would did [sic] not want to talk to specific individuals.  This type of telephone 
and customer service is extremely detrimental to the xxxxxxxxx Office. 
 
[The applicant] is NOT RECOMMENDED to participate for advancement to Chief Petty 
Officer for the following reasons:  He resists the leadership role and must develop as a 
leader if he is going to be advanced to Chief Petty Officer.  [Leadership and Management 
School] training was made available to him upon his arrival at this unit and he expressed 
that it wasn’t necessary for him to attend.  This training was made available for him since 
he was filling the Leading Petty Officer billet in the office and was responsible for five 
junior petty officers.  He is lacking in the skills and tools needed as an office supervisor 
and made no attempt to acquire these skills when they were made available to him.  He 
lacks administrative, financial, and correspondence knowledge and skills.  However, he 
is an excellent teacher and easily conveys his personal technical knowledge and skills to 
his subordinates, and has the potential to be a good leader. 

 
Regarding the mark of 2 for “customs and courtesies,” LCDR X. stated that the 
applicant’s performance met the standards for a mark of 2 but none of the standards for 
a  mark  of  4.    He  repeated  the  explanations  for  this  mark  made  in  the  administrative 
entry dated March 3, 1999. 
 

 
 
On  April  28,  1999,  the  applicant  appealed  the  EPEF.    LCDR  x.  forwarded  his 
appeal to the Commander of the xxxxxxx on May 13, 1999, with a letter explaining and 
justifying every evaluation mark challenged by the applicant, in accordance with Article 
10.B.10.b.(2) of the Personnel Manual.  With respect to the marks of 4 that the applicant 
challenged,  LCDR  x.  stated  that  his  performance  in  each  case  had  met  the  written 
standards for a mark of 4 but none of the written standards for a mark of 6, and he cited 
specific aspects of the applicant’s performance that supported the marks of 4.   
 

Regarding the mark of 3 for “monitoring work,” LCDR x. stated that the appli-
cant received a 3 because his performance “met some of the standards defined in the 2 
block  and  some  of  the  standards  in  the  4  block  on  the  EPEF.”    He  cited  a  project 
(rewriting an instruction for the xxxxxxxx) that had a deadline of February 28, 1999, but 
that  the  applicant  did  not  complete  prior  to  his  departure  on  February  20th,  despite 
repeated reminders. 

 
Regarding the mark of 3 for “evaluations,” LCDR x. stated that the applicant’s 
performance “met some of the standards defined in the 2 block and some of the stan-
dards in the 4 block on the EPEF.”  He stated that, upon his arrival, the applicant was 
told that he was responsible for preparing mid-period evaluations for his subordinate 
petty officers but failed to do so.  In addition, LCDR x. stated that the applicant also 
failed to provide his supervisor with any input for the disputed EPEF. 

Regarding the mark of 3 for “loyalty,” LCDR X. stated that the applicant received 
 
a  3  because  his  performance  “met  some  of  the  standards  defined  in  the  2  block  and 
some of the standards in the 4 block on the EPEF.”  He stated that “on several occasions, 
[the applicant] protested about decisions or lack of decisions made in conjunction with 
office policies or projects to his junior petty officers rather than to his supervisor.  He … 
showed  his  dissatisfaction  with  the  decisions  after  [the  XXX  and  LCDR  X.]  had  been 
directed by our superiors to make specific changes.  This dissatisfaction was aired to the 
entire office in an unprofessional, disloyal manner.” 
 
 
Regarding  the  mark  of  3  for  “adaptability,”  LCDR  X.  stated  that  the  applicant 
received a 3 because his performance “met some of the standards defined in the 2 block 
and some of the standards in the 4 block on the EPEF.”  LCDR X. stated that the appli-
cant  “voiced  his  dissatisfaction  with  changes  to  projects”  and,  when  directed  to  stop 
work on one project to work on a higher priority project, “did so grudgingly and with 
difficulty.” 
 
 
On July 19, 1999, the Commander of the xxxxxxxx denied the applicant’s appeal.  
He stated that, based on the letters of the applicant and LCDR X., he had determined 
that “the marks assigned were given in a responsible manner and provide an accurate 
evaluation of your performance.” 
 
 
The applicant has received three EPEFs for his performance since his return to 
Coast Guard Headquarters in February 1999.  They are numbered 12 through 14 in the 
table below.  On July 23, 1999, the Chief of xxxxxx for the xxxxxxx Coast Guard District 
made an administrative entry in his record highly praising the applicant’s performance 
on a temporary assignment to handle xxxx regarding the xxxxxx that killed xxxxxxxxxx. 
 

ess he was entitled to.”  Second, the Chief Counsel admitted that the Appeal Authority 
took  more  than  15  days  to  review  the  applicant’s  appeal.    However,  he  argued,  this 
delay was also harmless because the applicant received “the full measure of due process 
he was entitled to under the EPEF appeals system.” 
 

The Chief Counsel alleged that to prove his case, the applicant must overcome a 
strong presumption that his rating officials acted correctly, lawfully, and in good faith 
in making their evaluations under the Coast Guard’s Officer Evaluation System.  Arens 
v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. 
Cl. 1979).  To overcome the presumption of regularity, he alleged, the applicant must 
provide “clear, cogent, and convincing evidence to the contrary.”  The Chief Counsel 
argued  that  the  applicant  has  not  met  this  burden  with  respect  to  his  allegations 
regarding inadequate counseling.  He alleged that LCDR X.’s endorsement to the appli-
cant’s appeal indicates that LCDR X. met with him prior to his departure from the XX 
Office and told him why he would not be recommended for advancement.  The Chief 
Counsel stated that the applicant admits the meeting happened but “differs in recollec-
tion as to its nature.”  In addition, he stated that the record shows that LCDR X. “con-
tinued to be accessible to Applicant after his transfer.” 

 
The  Chief  Counsel  also  alleged  that  the  applicant  failed  to  meet  his  burden  of 
proof with respect to the accuracy of the marks in the disputed EPEF.  He pointed out 
that the applicant “failed to submit any independent evidence in support of his allega-
tion that his marks were disproportionately low.”  The fact that the applicant disagrees 
with the marks, he argued, “demonstrates only that he had a more favorable view of his 
own performance than those responsible for evaluating him.”  The Chief Counsel fur-
ther alleged that LCDR X. thoroughly justified the challenged marks in the EPEF in his 
endorsement to the applicant’s appeal. 

 
Finally,  the  Chief  Counsel  alleged,  the  applicant  failed  to  prove  that  his  EPEF 
marks  and  negative  recommendation  for  advancement  were  the  result  of  bias.    He 
pointed out that the applicant submitted no affidavits in support of his allegations, did 
not file any complaints against his rating officials, and failed to bring his allegations “to 
the attention of proper authorities” while working at the XX Office. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On June 16, 2000, the BCMR sent a copy of the Chief Counsel’s advisory opinion 

to the applicant and invited him to respond within 15 days.  He did not respond. 
 

 

RELEVANT REGULATIONS 

 

Coast Guard Personnel Manual 
 
 
Article 10.B. of the Personnel Manual governs the preparation of EPEFs.  Article 
10.B.1.b. states that “[e]ach commanding officer must ensure all enlisted members under 

their command receive accurate, fair, objective, and timely evaluations.”  Each enlisted 
member  is  evaluated  by  a  “rating  chain”  of  three  persons:  a  supervisor,  a  marking 
official, and an approving official.  Article 10.B.4.d. 
 
 
When preparing an EPEF, under Article 10.B.4.d.(3), the supervisor assigns rec-
ommended  performance  marks  for  each  performance  category  and  prepares  written 
comments supporting every recommended mark that is a 1, 2, or 7.  The supervisor then 
indicates whether he or she recommends the member for advancement and forwards 
the draft EPEF to the marking official. 
 
Under Article 10.B.4.d.(4), the marking official reviews the draft EPEF and dis-
 
cusses with the supervisor “any recommendations considered inaccurate or inconsistent 
with the member’s actual performance.”  The marking official then assigns the final per-
formance  marks,  indicates  whether  he  or  she  recommends  the  member  for  advance-
ment, and forwards the EPEF to the approving official. 
 
 
Under  Article  10.B.4.d.(5),  the  approving  official  reviews  the  EPEF  to  ensure 
“overall consistency between assigned marks and actual behavior and output” and to 
ensure that “evaluees are counseled and advised of appeal procedures.”  The approving 
official may return an EPEF for revision if he or she thinks any marks are inaccurate.  
Otherwise he or she signs the EPEF, concurring in the marks assigned by the marking 
official, and indicates whether he or she recommends the member for advancement. 
 
 
Under Article 10.B.6.b., the written comments supporting marks of 1, 2, or 7 must 
be entered in a member’s personnel data record on an Administrative Remarks page.  
The member must be counseled concerning the entry.  Article 10.B.6.b.2.b. 
 

Under Article 10.B.5.a., members in pay grade E-6 receive “regular” semiannual 
evaluations at the end of each May and November.  However, if a member who has not 
received a regular evaluation within 92 days is transferred from a unit due to a perma-
nent change of station, the member must receive a “special” transfer evaluation, which 
must  be  prepared  and  signed  by  the  member  “NO  LATER  THAN  15  days  before 
departing the unit to allow adequate time for counseling, appeal, and administration.” 
 
Under  Article  10.B.10.,  a  member  may  appeal  performance  marks  on  an  EPEF 
 
(but  not  a  negative  recommendation  for  advancement)  within  15  days  of  receiving  a 
copy of the approved EPEF.  Upon appeal, a member’s commanding officer may raise 
assigned marks as requested by the member.  Otherwise, the appeal must be forwarded 
to the Appeal Authority within 15 days of receipt from the member, although the 15 
days may be extended if more time is needed because, for example, a member of the 
rating chain has been transferred.  The commanding officer must forward the appeal to 
the  Appeal  Authority  with  an  endorsement  containing  “specific  examples  of  demon-
strated  performance  that  warranted  the  assigned  marks.”    Article  10.B.10.b.2.e.    The 

Appeal Authority must review and act upon an appeal within 15 days of receipt.  Arti-
cle 10.B.10.b.3.a. 
 
 
his or her command to be eligible to take the service-wide examination for promotion. 
 

Under Article 5.C.4.b.1.l., a member must be recommended for advancement by 

4. 

5. 

6. 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 

 
 
The  Board  makes  the  following  findings  and  conclusions  on  the  basis  of  the 
applicant's military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission, and appli-
cable law: 
 
 
of title 10 of the United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that most of the marks in the disputed EPEF were 
too low and not reflective of his actual performance at the XX Office.  However, in his 
endorsement to the applicant’s appeal of the EPEF, his marking official confirmed and 
justified each of the challenged marks with specific examples of his performance.  The 
marking official’s comments indicate a thorough familiarity with the applicant’s duties 
and performance.  The applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence 
that any of the challenged marks in the disputed EPEF are erroneous. 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  his  supervisor  and  marking  official  assigned 
him low marks because they were biased against him.  However, he submitted no evi-
dence whatsoever in support of this allegation.  
 
The  Coast  Guard  erred  by  preparing  the  EPEF  after  the  applicant  had 
 
departed the XX Office.  However, the applicant did not prove that he was denied any 
substantial  right  as  a  result  of  this  administrative  error.    The  record  reflects  that  the 
applicant was counseled by LCDR X., his marking official, prior to his departure from 
the XX Office, and was able to discuss the marks with him after it was prepared.  The 
applicant has not proved that he was not provided sufficient feedback and counseling 
concerning his performance. 
 
 
The Coast Guard erred by taking more than 15 days to consider the appli-
cant’s appeal.  However, the applicant has not proved that the delay deprived him of 
any  substantial  right.    The  record  indicates  that  his  letter  of  appeal  and  the  marking 
official’s endorsement were properly considered before his appeal was denied. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that the excellent marks he has received on his other 
EPEFs prove that the marks in the disputed EPEF are erroneous.  However, the fact that 
one EPEF is significantly worse than the others in his record does not prove that it is 
erroneous.  Grieg v. United States, 640 F.2d 1261, 1269 (Ct. Cl. 1981).  It is not unusual for 

members being assigned to a new position requiring new skills, such as administration 
and  supervision,  to  receive  lower  evaluation  marks  until  they  acquire  those  skills 
through  experience  and  training.    The  Board  notes  that  even  after  the  applicant  was 
transferred to Headquarters, many of his marks remained lower than those he had pre-
viously received as a XX3 and XX2. 
 
 
The applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
Coast Guard committed any error with respect to the evaluation marks in the disputed 
EPEF.  Nor has he proved that he was unjustly denied his command’s recommendation 
for advancement. 
 

7. 

 
 

8. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

The application for correction of the military record of XXXXXXXXX, USCG, is 

ORDER 

 

 
 

hereby denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
Terence W. Carlson 

 

 

 
L. L. Sutter 

 

 

 
Sharon Y. Vaughn