DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2008-003 
 
XXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXX  
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
 
This proceeding was conducted according to the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and 
section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  The Chair docketed the case on October 5, 
2007, upon receipt of the completed application, and subsequently prepared the final decision for 
the Board as required by 33 C.F.R. § 52.61(c). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case.   
 

This  final  decision,  dated  June  24,  2008,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to correct her record by reinstating her to YN1 (pay grade 
E-6)  effective  November  8,  2005,  the  date  on  which  she  was  reduced  to  YN2.    She  further 
requested that all documentation pertaining to her reduction in rate be removed from her military 
record.  
 
 
The applicant contended that her reduction in rate was not processed in accordance with 
the requirements of the Personnel Manual.  In this regard, she argued that she was not counseled 
formally when placed on probation as stated in the administrative remarks page1 (page 7) dated 
April 5, 2005.  Further, the applicant alleged that the page 7 placing her on probation did not 
clearly state what requirements she had to meet for a successful probation.    Also she argued that 
she was never given a mark of 2 in any performance factor2 on her enlisted evaluations reviews3 
prior to being placed on probation.   
                                                 
1  An  administrative  remarks  page  provides  a  means  of  recording  miscellaneous  entries,  which  are  not  recorded 
elsewhere in a Personnel Data Record (PDR).  Administrative Remarks entries are made to document counseling or 
to record any other information required by current directives, or considered to be of historical value.  Section 10.A. 
of the Pay and Personnel Manual (HIRSICINST M1000.6A). 
 
2   Enlisted marks range from a low of 1 to a high of 7.  A 4 is considered an average mark.  See Article 10.B.6.a.3.7. 
of the Personnel Manual.   

 
 
The  applicant  contended  that  her  probation  was,  in  part,  retaliation  by  her  supervisor 
because in March 2005 she had reported him for sleeping at his desk and because the van pool, 
in  which  she  was  the  driver  and  the  supervisor  was  a  passenger,  could  not  to  wait  for  the 
supervisor  on  a  particular  day  and  left  without  him.    The  applicant  also  complained  that  the 
supervisor sent sexist and gender-based jokes to members of the unit, including herself, which 
created a hostile work environment. These emails are dated June 7, 2005, June 21, 2005, and 
July 14, 2005.  The emails were entitled “when men are in charge of cleaning the house” with a 
non-discernable picture, “Blonde Joke” with the punch line “So tell me” says the blonde, “How 
is it that you feel qualified to discuss nuclear power when you don’t know s___,” and “Words 
women  use.”      She  stated  that  she  filed  a  discrimination  complaint  against  her  supervisor  on 
April 3, 2005, which was followed with a formal complaint on September 13, 2005. 
 
 
The applicant contended that the command’s reason for reducing her in rate had nothing 
to  do  with  her  performance  during  the  probationary  period.    As  evidence,  she  pointed  to  the 
commanding officer’s (CO’s) letter to the Commander Mid-Atlantic Region recommending her 
reduction.      According  to  the  applicant,  the  letter  did  not  reference  her  failure  to  meet  any 
particular  performance  factor  on  her  enlisted  employee  review.    She  further  argued  that  her 
mentor  for  the  probationary  period  checked  all  of  her  work  prior  to  it  being  submitted  for 
signature and that all of her work came back with no errors.  Also, she stated that her supervisor 
used examples of her work that were completed prior to her probationary period to justify her 
reduction in rate. 
 
 
The  applicant  submitted  an  email  from  Ms.  P  to  Chief  Petty  Officer  T  praising  the 
manner in which the applicant filled in while Ms. P on was a nine-week maternity leave during 
the summer of 2004.    Ms. P stated that when she returned to work there was no lag time in 
catching up on her duties.  She stated that she urged the applicant’s supervisor to nominate the 
applicant for sailor of the quarter, which was never done.    
 
 
The applicant also submitted an email from Mr. O, a family advocacy specialist, to Chief 
Petty  Officer  T,  dated  April  19,  2005.    Mr.  O  stated  that  the  applicant  has  consistently  and 
professionally  accomplished  many  different  tasks  and  assignments  that  support  the  Work-life 
Family  Advocacy  Program.    His  opinion  was  that  the  applicant  “has  been  very  helpful  and 
demonstrates a positive, caring attitude in her work.” 
 

 
The  applicant’s  military  record  indicates  that  she  has  a  history  of  performance  and 
behavior problems dating back to 1992.  Nevertheless, she was advanced to YN1, pay grade E-6, 
in July 2003. 
                                                                                                                                                             
3   Enlisted members are evaluated in four major categories:  They are: (1) military performance which measures a 
member’s  ability  to  bring  credit  to  the  Coast  Guard  through  personal  demeanor  and  professional  actions;  (2) 
performance which measures a member’s willingness to acquire knowledge and ability to use knowledge, skill and 
direction to accomplish work;  (3) professional qualities which measures those qualities the Coast Guard values in 
its  people;  and  (4)  leadership  which  measures  a  members  ability  to  direct  guide,  guide,  develop,  influence,  and 
support others performing work.  Article 10.B. of the Personnel Manual.   

SUMMARY OF MILITARY RECORD 

 

 
 
The applicant’s first enlisted employee review  as a  YN1 is dated November 30, 2003.  
While she did not receive any below average marks in any of the performance factors, she was 
not recommended for  advancement to the next higher  grade, YNC. However on her next two 
enlisted employee reviews prior to probation, the applicant received below average marks.  On 
the  enlisted  review  dated  May  31,  2004,  she  received  below  average  marks  of  3  in  the 
performance category, and on the employee review dated November 30, 2004, she received a 3 
in professional qualities and two 3s in performance.  She was not recommended for advancement 
to YNC on either employee review.    
 
 
  A page 7 counseling entry dated February 1, 2005, explained why the applicant was not 
recommended for advancement on her November 30, 2004 enlisted employee review.  The entry 
stated that the applicant failed to consistently demonstrate that she could satisfactorily perform 
the duties and responsibilities of the next higher pay grade.    It further counseled the applicant: 
 

During  this  marking  period,  you  repeatedly  failed  to  complete  assignments  on 
time, assignments that were completed had to be re-done due to errors, and you 
did  not  respond  in  a  timely  manner  to  requests  and  directions  from  your 
supervisor.  In addition, your performance during the period varied from poor to 
outstanding.  These negative trends  and the  “roller coaster” of performance are 
unacceptable and will not be tolerated.  They effect the confidence that has been 
placed in you and causes questions concerning your ability to handle the increased 
responsibilities inherent with the next higher pay grade.   
 
In order to gain the commanding officer’s recommendation for advancement, you 
must carefully review the performance dimensions for monitoring work, quality 
of work, and adaptability, and ensure that you actively uphold and enforce, at a 
minimum,  the  standard  for  a  mark  of  4  in  each  of  these  factors.    These  are 
performance  expectations  of  a  petty  officer,  and  they  must  be  demonstrated  by 
you over the months ahead.   

 
 
On  April  5,  2005,  the  executive  officer  (XO)  notified  the  applicant  that  she  was  a 
candidate for reduction to YN2 due to incompetence.  The applicant was placed on performance 
probation for three months.  The page 7, which the applicant refused to acknowledge with her 
signature, informed the applicant that her performance had been unsatisfactory over the past six 
months and noted that she had been counseled about the proper and timely completion of routine 
tasks.  The page 7 further stated: 
 

Specific problems have been noted in your preparation of standard Coast Guard 
letters such as those for the special needs program and the recent letters being sent 
to  ombudsman.    Numerous  errors  were  noted  and  despite  specific  corrections 
being provided, errors were again noted in letters that were presented as having 
been  corrected.    This  resulted  in  some  letters  having  to  be  re-done  up  to  three 
times.    Other  problems  include  your  not  completing  assigned  tasks  such  as 
updating  the  work  life  calendar,  completion  of  bi-weekly  civilian  time  card 
information and the units visited spreadsheet in a timely and accurate manner . . .  

 

The applicant received a regular enlisted employee review on May 31, 2005, as required 
by the Personnel Manual submission schedule.  She received several 2s in performance and a 
mark  of  3  in  professional  qualities  and  performance.    She  was  not  recommended  for 
advancement.   

 
At  the  end  of  the  probationary  period  the  applicant  was  given  an  enlisted  employee 
review  dated  July  4,  2005.    In  that  evaluation  she  was  given  marks  of  3  in  the  leadership, 
professional  qualities,  and  marks  of  2  and  3  in  performance.    She  was  not  recommended  for 
advancement.  
 

Additionally,  problem  areas  are  communicating  with  your  supervisor  and 
responding to requests for information and providing the status of projects.  It has 
been noted that requests and direction from your supervisor are not answered or 
responded to.  This requires a follow up request and direction from him before 
you  take  any  action.    This  behavior  is  totally  unacceptable  and  needs  to  be 
changed immediately.  
 
During this probationary period your progress will be evaluated.  CWO2 [M] has 
volunteered to serve as a mentor during this period.  Consult with her should you 
have any questions concerning what is being required.  If at the end of this period, 
you  have  failed  to  demonstrate  a  significant  improvement  you  will  be 
recommended for reduction in rank . . . A special enlisted employee review will 
be completed at that time for the purpose of determining competency.     

On July 4, 2005, a page 7 was placed in the applicant’s record, which she refused to sign, 
advising  her  that  her  three-month  probationary  period  had  ended  and  that  she  had  been 
determined to be incompetent in the YN1 rate.  The CO stated that the applicant had failed to 
respond to requests for status/updates on assigned projects; that she was late in submitting work 
and was not proactive; and that her routine paperwork often reflected errors such as incorrect 
unit address formatting and improper heading information.  The CO informed the applicant that 
he would request that she be reduced in rate to YN2 effective the date of its approval.   
 
 
On September 9, 2005, the CO requested that the Commander of the Mid Atlantic Region 
approve his request to reduce the applicant to YN2.  The CO stated that the basis for his request 
was information contained in ISC Miami Memos dated April 4, 2005 and August 11, 2005 that 
were attached to his letter.  However, these documents were not provided to the BCMR.  The CO 
stated that during the three-month probationary period the applicant was mentored and received 
training and counseling from a warrant officer, a chief yeoman, and a master chief petty officer, 
but  that  the  applicant  failed  to  make  progress  on  her  noted  deficiencies.  The  CO  stated  that 
following  the  probationary  period,  he  met  with  the  applicant’s  mentors,  supervisor,  and  the 
command master chief who unanimously recommended that she be reduced in rate for failure to 
meet the standards expected of a first class petty officer.   He also noted and listed the applicant’s 
performance and behavior problems dating back to 1992.   
 

Apparently,  the  applicant  was  given  an  opportunity  to  comment  on  the  CO’s 
recommendation,  as  required  by  the  Personnel  Manual.    The  applicant  must  have  complained 

about  her  probation  evaluation  because  the  CO  wrote  the  following  in  his  letter:    “[The 
applicant] was marked on 30 November 2004, 31 May 2005, and again on 4 July 2005.  Her 
probation period began on 5 April 2005 and ended after three months on 4 July 2005.  Although 
her final probation marks only covered the final month of her probation, the evaluation dated 31 
May 20054 was indicative of her performance prior to and during the probation period and does 
not vary greatly from the preciously assigned marks.   

 
 The applicant was reduced to YN2 effective November 8, 2005. 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
On March 12, 2008, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted as 
advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny the applicant’s request.  The JAG argued 
that the Coast Guard reduced the applicant to YN2 in accordance with the Personnel Manual.  In 
this regard, the JAG stated that Article 5.C.38.c. states, “The reason for the reduction must be 
solely  incompetence  as  evidenced  by  the  fact  that  the  person  is  not  qualified  to  perform  the 
duties of his or her rate.”  The provision further provides,  “If an individual’s evaluation mark for 
any  factor  is  below  a  factor  average  of  2  for  any  evaluation  period,  or  at  any  time  in  the 
member’s  commanding  officer’s  judgment  the  member’s  competency  is  questionable,  the 
commanding  officer  shall  make  an  administrative  remarks  .  .  .  entry  in  the  Personnel  Data 
Record stating that the individual is a candidate for reduction in rate by reason of incompetence 
and  the  following  three  month  period  will  constitute  a  formal  evaluation  of  his  or  her 
competency.”    
 
 
In response to the applicant’s argument that she was never given a 2 in any factor on her 
enlisted employee reviews as a YN1 prior to being placed on probation, the JAG pointed to the 
provision of the Personnel Manual which gives the commanding officer the authority to use his 
judgment in deciding whether a member is to be a candidate for reduction due to incompetence.  
The  JAG  also  noted  that  the  applicant  had  a  long  history  of  performance  issues  and  that  in 
February 2005 she had received counseling because she was not recommended for advancement 
on her latest enlisted employee review, which was documented on a page 7.    
 
 
With  regard  to  the  applicant’s  argument  that  the  April  5,  2005  page  7  placing  her  on 
probation  did  not  state  clearly  what  the  requirements  were  for  a  successful  completion  of 
probation, the JAG disagreed and stated that the page 7 clearly identified the factors involved 
and the exact areas in which the applicant needed to improve.   
 
 
The  JAG  stated  that  the  applicant  had  not  presented  any  evidence  to  support  her 
contention that her probation and subsequent reduction in rate were the result of retaliation for 
having reported her supervisor for sleeping at his desk in March 2005.  The JAG noted that a 
month  earlier,  on  February  1,  2005,  the  applicant  had  already  been  counseled  about  her 
unsatisfactory  performance.    With  respect  to  the  alleged  discriminatory  and  gender-0based 
emails sent by her supervisor, the JAG stated that they were distributed on June 7, June 21, and 
July 14, 2005, well after the probationary period began and that one is dated after the end of the 
                                                 
4   According to the enlisted employee review submission schedule evaluations for member in pay grade E-6 are due 
the last day of May.  Article 10.B.5.a. of the Personnel Manual.   

probationary  period.    Moreover,  the  JAG  stated  that  the  applicant  was  recommended  for 
reduction by the commanding officer not the supervisor, which was approved by Commander, 
Mid-Atlantic Region.    
 
 
The JAG concluded that the applicant did not present sufficient evidence to overcome the 
presumption of regularity afforded to government officials in the execution of their duties.  The 
JAG argued that the Board should therefore deny her request.   
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
 On April 15, 2008, the Board received the applicant’s reply to the views of the Coast 
Guard.  Attached to her reply were documents that contained significant new information.  The 
applicant  was  advised  that  the  Board’s  acceptance  of  the  new  information  would  require  an 
adjustment  to  the  ten-month  processing  timeline,  as  required  by  33  CFR  §  52.26(c).    This 
provision  states  that  if  an  applicant  “significantly  amends  his  or  her  request  for  relief  or  new 
evidence is received after the application is docketed . . . the applicant shall be considered newly 
complete as of the date the amended request for relief or new evidence is received.” 
 

 On April 21, 2008, the applicant informed the Board that she did not wish to have the 
decision delayed in her case and requested the Board not consider the new information and that it 
be  returned  to  her.    On  April  23,  2008,  the  Board  returned  the  documentary  evidence  as 
requested.   The  applicant’s statement in reply to the advisory opinion minus the enclosures is 
discussed below.   

 
The applicant stated that her reduction in rate constituted and injustice for the following 

reasons:   

 

 

•  The command held a vote among her mentors to decide if she should be reduced. She 
stated that asking them to vote on her work habits violated her confidentiality since they 
were her mentors and supposed to be her sounding board.  
 

•  The CO used the fact that she was not recommended for advancement to the next higher 
grade  as  a  basis  for  placing  her  on  probation  and  referenced  problems  with  her 
performance back to 1993 because he was not able to find examples of mistakes she had 
made during the probationary period.   

•  She was  evaluated as a YN1 by a new supervisor on her enlisted employee review on 
November  7,  2005,  the  day  before  she  was  reduced.    She  stated  that  she  received  no 
marks on the enlisted employee review lower than 4 (however, she was not recommended 
for advancement), but was still reduced.    
 

•  That her probation marks were based on one month of performance rather than her three 

month probationary period. 
 
The applicant restated her allegations that her probation was, in part, retaliation by the 
supervisor, because the supervisor was aware that she had filed a formal complaint in April 2005.   

The applicant again stated that the sending of the inappropriate emails by her supervisor after she 
had filed her complaint created a hostile work environment for her.  The applicant stated that her 
supervisor did not give her low marks until she was placed on probation.   
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant's 

 
military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submissions, and applicable law:  
 
 
of the United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 

1.   The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of title 10 

2.  The applicant requested an oral hearing before the Board.  The Chair, acting pursuant 
to  33  C.F.R.  § 52.51,  denied  the  request  and  recommended  disposition  of  the  case  without  a 
hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommendation. 
 
 
3.  The applicant has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the Coast Guard 
violated  the  Personnel  Manual  by  reducing  her  in  rate  from  YN1  to  YN2  on  the  basis  of 
incompetence.  Article 5.C.38.c. of the Personnel Manual provides two grounds for a reduction 
in rate due to incompetence.  They are:  an evaluation mark for any factor below a factor average 
of 2, or at any time in the member’s commanding officer’s judgment the member’s competency 
is questionable.  On April 5, 2005, the XO informed the applicant that she was a candidate for 
reduction  due  to  incompetence  because  her  performance  had  been  less  than  satisfactory.    He 
pointed  out  the  areas  in  which  the  command  had  problems  with  her  performance,  such  as 
problems with preparing standard Coast Guard letters resulting in correspondence being redone 
several  times;  not  completing  assigned  tasks  in  a  timely,  accurate  manner,  that  required  the 
supervisor to review all of her work for accuracy; and not communicating with her supervisor 
and responding to his requests for information and status reports. Whether or not the applicant 
received  an  average  factor  mark  below  2,  the  CO  acted  within  his  authority  to  designate  the 
applicant as a candidate for reduction since in his judgment her competence to perform the duties 
of a YN1 was in question.    
 
4.  The applicant’s claim that the page 7 placing her on probation did not state clearly the 
 
areas of her performance that required improvement to avoid a reduction in rank is without merit.  
The XO listed the areas in which the applicant’s performance was unacceptable, and he informed 
her that there were errors in the preparation of her standard Coast Guard correspondence, that she 
failed  to  complete  assigned  tasks,  and  that  she  failed  to  communicate  with  her  supervisor.  
Further, the applicant was advised that her behavior needed to change immediately.  The XO also 
appointed a mentor for the applicant and told her to consult with her mentor if the applicant had 
any questions about the requirements for a successful probationary period.  Moreover, earlier on 
a page 7 dated February 1, 2005, counseling the applicant because of a non-recommendation for 
advancement on her November 2004 enlisted employee review, she was told at that time, that in 
order  to  gain  a  recommendation  for  advancement,  she  needed  to  review  the  performance 
standards  for  monitoring  work,  quality  of  work,  and  adaptability,  which  were  essentially  the 
same  areas  of  her  performance  that  were  unsatisfactory  and  resulted  in  her  placement  on 
probation.  Therefore, the notice provided in the April 5, 2005 page 7, the assignment of a CWO 

and others as mentors, and the February 1, 2005 page 7, provided the applicant with sufficient 
information  about  the  areas  of  her  performance  that  required  improvement  and  with  the 
necessary  resources  for  her  to  improve  her  performance  during  the  three-month  probationary 
period.   
 
 
5.  The applicant alleged but failed to prove that her placement on probation was in part 
retaliation  against  her  by  her  supervisor  because  she  reported  him  for  sleeping  at  his  desk  in 
March 2005 and because the van pool in which she was the driver left without him.  Whether or 
not  these  events  occurred,  there  is  no  evidence,  except  for  the  applicant’s  statement,  that  the 
supervisor retaliated against her because of them.    
 
 
6.  The applicant alleged that sexist and gender-based emails sent by her supervisor to 
herself and others were not appreciated and made her uncomfortable, thereby contributing to the 
creation of a hostile work environment.  The three emails were sent from June 7, 2005 through 
July 14, 2005, and were entitled “when men are in charge of cleaning the house” with a non-
discernable picture, “Blonde Joke” with the punch line “So tell me” says the blonde, “How is it 
that you feel qualified to discuss nuclear power when you don’t know s___,” and “Words women 
use.”  Apparently, the emails were a part of the discrimination complaint she filed against her 
supervisor, but none of the documents related to that complaint were submitted to the Board.5  
The evidence available to the Board is insufficient to prove that a hostile workplace existed or 
provides any basis for relief by the Board.   
 
 
7.  The applicant argued that it was unjust for the CO to decide whether she should have 
been reduced at the end of her probationary period based upon the votes of her supervisor, her 
mentors, and two other senior enlisted members of the unit.  However, there is nothing in the 
regulation  that  prohibits  the  CO  from  consulting  with  members  of  the  command  in  making  a 
decision of this sort.  Moreover, as the CO was not the applicant’s day-to-day supervisor, it was 
reasonable for him to seek the opinions of those responsible for supervising her and who worked 
closely with her for advice and input on this significant decision.    
 
 
8.  The applicant complained that the CO based his recommendation for reducing her in 
rate on the fact that she was not recommended for advancement to the higher grade and other 
performance problems dating back to 1993.  While the CO noted the applicant’s failure to gain 
an advancement recommendation and her past performance problems, he made it clear that after 
a  three-month  probationary  period,  the  applicant  “failed  to  make  progress  on  her  noted 
deficiencies.”    These  deficiencies  were  identified  in  the  April  5,  2005  page  7  placing  the 
applicant on probation.  Accordingly, the Board is not persuaded that the reduction in rate was 
based on the applicant’s past performance problems.  Nor is the Board persuaded that she was 
reduced in rate because she was not recommended for advancement to the higher grade.  The 
reduction  resulted  from  her  inability  to  perform  at  the  YN1  level.    Her  prior  and  current 
performance history was  probably included to assist the approving authority  with his decision 
whether  to  approve  or  disapprove  the  applicant’s  reduction  in  rate  due  to  incompetence  by 
providing him with a complete picture of her performance history.    
 
                                                 
5   The applicant may have submitted documents related to this allegation in her rebuttal to the advisory opinion, but 
she withdrew that information from the Board’s consideration.   

10.  All of the applicant’s contentions have been considered.  Those not discussed within 

  
9.  The applicant alleged that it was unjust for the Coast Guard to evaluate her as a YN1 
on the day before her reduction by a new supervisor.  However, Article 10.B.5.b.4.b. requires that 
an enlisted employee review be completed the day before the effective reduction rate in the grade 
from which reduced.  Therefore, the enlisted employee review completed prior to her reduction 
was prepared in accordance with the Personnel Manual.   Therefore, the applicant has failed to 
prove  an  error  or  injustice  in  this  regard.    Her  complaint  that  she  did  not  receive  any  below 
average marks on this evaluation is true, but this was not the evaluation on which the reduction 
in  rate  was  based.    That  evaluation  occurred  on  July  4,  2005,  at  the  end  of  her  three  month 
probationary period.   
 
 
the findings and conclusions are considered not to be dispositive of this case. 
 
 
should be denied.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

11.  Accordingly, the applicant has failed to prove error or injustice in this case and it 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

The application of XXXXXXXXXXXXX, USCG, for correction of her military record is 

ORDER 

 

 

denied.   
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

        

 
 Jeff M. Neurauter 

 

 

 
 Lynda K. Pilgrim 

 

 

 
 
 Eric J. Young