DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2009-155 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
   

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 after receiving the 
completed  application  on  May  18,  2009,  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  March  3,  2010,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant asked the Board to correct her record to show that she was advanced to 
master chief yeoman (YNCM; page grade E-9), retroactive to December 1, 2007, with back pay 
and allowances. She further requested that her June 26, 2008 transfer enlisted employee review 
(EER) evaluating her performance be removed from her record, as well as any other personnel 
action related to the commanding officer’s (CO’s) withdrawal of the applicant’s recommendation 
for advancement to E-9.   

 
During  the  period  under  review,  the  applicant  was  assigned  to  Integrated  Support 
Command (ISC) Alameda.  She alleged that the CO’s withdrawal of her recommendation for the 
applicant’s advancement to master chief petty officer (E-9) only five days before she was due to 
be promoted was error and injustice that shocks any reasonable “sense of justice.”  The applicant 
made the following specific allegations of error and/or injustice. 
 
1.  The Coast Guard committed error and injustice by depriving the applicant of any opportunity 
to know and correct the alleged performance and leadership deficiencies.  The applicant argues 
that  the  withdrawal  of  her  advancement  recommendation  without  any  advance  notice  that  her 
performance and leadership were deficient constitutes error and injustice warranting full relief, 
and that the withdrawal just days before she was to be advanced was as humiliating as it was 
erroneous and unjust.  The applicant stated that she received only positive feedback from the CO 
about her performance until November 26, 2007.  She asserted that the Board should find as a 

matter  of  fact  that  the  CO  did  not  raise  her  performance  concerns  with  the  applicant  or  her 
supervisory chain, and certainly not prior to July 2007, when her chain of supervision changed.   
 
2.    The  applicant  asserted  that  her  performance  of  duty  was  not  so  deficient  as  to  warrant 
promotion withdrawal.  The applicant argued that the two individuals who supervised her (their 
statements are summarized below) were not made aware of the alleged performance deficiencies 
until the applicant contacted them in regard to her BCMR application.1  She asserted that if her 
supervisory  chain  was  not  aware  of  the  alleged  performance  deficiencies,  the  Board  must 
presume  that  the  alleged  deficiencies  were  not  pronounced,  particularly  serious,  or  obvious, 
because if they had been, the supervisory chain would have been taken appropriate measures to 
counsel the applicant.   
 
3.    The  applicant  asserted  that  her  race  was  a  determining  and  improper  factor  in  [the  CO’s] 
decision to withdraw her recommendation for the applicant’s advancement to master chief.  The 
applicant stated that it is well-established in the professional literature that racial bias exists in 
the workplace, including the uniformed services.  The applicant stated that literature and research 
have  concluded  that  racial  and  other  forms  of  discrimination  occur  in  the  absence  of  overtly 
racist acts or attitudes and that modern racial discrimination is better characterized as a biased 
cognitive process founded on stereotypical attitudes and beliefs about minority group members 
rather  than  consciously  held  racist  views.    The  applicant  asserted  that  because  overtly 
discriminatory  acts  and  statements  are  less  common  today  than  in  decades  prior,  the  courts 
routinely look at statistics detailing the demographic composition of a work force in determining 
whether  race  played  a  role  in  a  personnel  decision.  With  respect  to  African-American 
representation in the highest enlisted ranks of the Coast Guard, the applicant offered that she was 
one of six African-Americans serving in the Coast Guard in the grade of E-8 and there was only 
one  African-American  female  serving  in  grade  E-9,  while  African-Americans  comprised  over 
10% of the total Coast Guard military force.  The applicant stated that she should have been the 
second  African-American  female  serving  in  pay  grade  E-9.    The  applicant  contended  that 
“[a]lthough [the CO’s] discrimination may have been unconscious nevertheless she intentionally 
withheld information that has negatively impacted my career.”      
 

CHRONOLOGY OF PERTINENT EVENTS AS PRESENTED BY THE 

In  July  2004,  the  applicant  was  assigned  to  ISC  Alameda  as  the  supervisor, 

APPLICANT2 

 

administration personnel branch. 

 
In July 2006, she was assigned as the command senior chief. 
 
On July 13, 2006, the CO assumed command of ISC Alameda. 

                                                 
1 The statements from these individuals  were  members of  the applicant’s rating chain  until the  summer of 2007.  
References to the rating chain are to these two individuals and  may be referred to as the applicant’s prior rating 
chain  in  this  decision.    The  applicant  was  reassigned  as  the  SPO  chief  in  early  October  2007  and  there  are  no 
statements from the new rating chain for this two-month period.   The rating chain for the last two months of the 
reporting period apparently prepared the applicant’s November 30, 2007 and June 26, 2008 EERs.   
2   There is support in the record for much of this chronology. 

 
In October 2006, with the favorable endorsement of the CO, the applicant attended the 

command master chief four-week course.  

 
In  December  2006,  the  applicant  received  her  annual  EER  in  which  the  CO 

recommended her for advancement to E-9. 

 
On January 19, 2007, the applicant received a favorable endorsement from the CO on her 

application for membership on the Commandant’s Diversity Advisory Council. 

 
In  May  2007,  the  applicant  received  a  favorable  endorsement  on  her  application  for 

special assignment to a command master chief position. 

 
In June 2007, a revised advancement list was published showing that the applicant would 

be advanced to E-9 by the end of 2007. 

 
In  October  2007,  the  applicant  was  selected  for  a  2008  command  master  chief 

assignment. 

 
On October 9, 2007, the applicant was reassigned as supervisor of the servicing personnel 

office.   
 
On November 19, 2007, the advancement list was released announcing that the applicant 

would be advanced to E-9 on December 1, 2007. 

 
On  November  26,  2007,  the  applicant  met  with  the  CO  to  ask  her  to  preside  at  the 
applicant’s  promotion  ceremony.    According  to  the  applicant,  during  this  meeting  the  CO 
informed the applicant that she was considering withdrawing the applicant’s recommendation for 
advancement based on concerns about the applicant’s performance and leadership.   

 
On November 27, 2007, the applicant made a written request that the CO not withdraw 

her recommendation for advancement.   

 
On November 28, 2007, the CO and the applicant met and discussed her advancement.  
The  CO  expressed  several  concerns  about  the  applicant’s  performance.    According  to  the 
applicant, this was the first time she was aware that the CO had concerns about her performance. 

 
On November 29, 2007, the CO informed the applicant in writing that she intended to 

withdraw her recommendation for the applicant’s advancement.   

 
On November 30, the applicant submitted a written response to the CO’s withdrawal of 

her recommendation for advancement.   

 
On  November  30,  2007,  the  Coast  Guard  removed  the  applicant’s  name  from  the 

advancement list.  

 

On December 10, 2007, the applicant received her periodic EER with two below-average 
marks  of  3  in  respecting  others3  and  monitoring  work4  and  a  mark  of  not  recommended  for 
advancement,5 which she acknowledged and indicated an intention to appeal. 

 
On December 26, 2007, the applicant filed a complaint for redress of wrongs against the 

CO under Article 138 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).   

 
On January 11, 2008, the applicant filed an informal appeal of her November 30, 2007 

EER marks. 

 
On  February  5,  2008,  the  Commander,  Maintenance  and  Logistics  Command  Pacific 

denied the applicant’s Article 138 complaint for relief.   

 
In April 2008, the CO denied the applicant’s informal appeal of her EER marks. 
 
In  June  2008,  the  applicant  transferred  to  Coast  Guard  Headquarters  on  permanent 

change of station (PCS) orders.   

 
In  November  2008,  the  applicant  received  her  transfer  evaluation  from  ISC  Alameda, 
which did not recommend her for advancement to E-9.  The applicant also received a letter of 
commendation from the CO for certain of her duties while at ISC Alameda.   

 

SUMMARY OF PERTINENT DOCUMENTS 

 

CO’s Letter Withdrawing her Recommendation for the Applicant’s Advancement 
 
 
On  November  30,  2007,  the  CO  informed  the  applicant  that  she  was  withdrawing  the 
applicant’s  recommendation  for  advancement  because  the  applicant  had  not  demonstrated  the 
leadership ability to be an effective master chief.  She set forth the following examples: 
 
“a. You were aware or should have been aware of performance and service gaps relating to the 
SPO, but failed to take action.    Examples include numerous, often very significant mistakes in 
transfer and retirement documents.  On several occasions, you were encouraged by me to take a 
more  active  role  in  the  SPO.    Your  failure  to  take  a  definitive  leadership  role  is  especially 
                                                 
3   On the counseling receipt in the respecting others category, the rating chain provided the following justification:  
“Member displayed a serious lack of judgment by dealing with her performance concerns regarding a fellow chief 
through a written admonishment and by jumping the chain of command by using an inappropriate means (multi-
address email) to convey the concerns and issues up the chain which conveyed a disrespectful message to a fellow 
chief.      Member  acknowledged  the  mistake  but  lapse  was  not  to  be  expected  of  an  E8  of  this  experience  level.  
Additionally,  following  some  changes  and  restructuring  within  branch  members  efforts  to  carve  out  personal 
territory was divisive within the branch and not in alignment with division officer’s goals and tasking.”    
4    On  the  counseling  receipt  in  the  monitoring  work  category,  the  rating  chain  wrote:    “While  generally  kept 
supervisor informed, occasionally needed to be preempted for certain actions.  Goal setting and prioritization lacked 
a strategic focus.  Examples include preparation for Sailor of the Quarter materials as command senior chief and 
management of the “AT Risk” tracking tool.”   
5   The reasons for the applicant’s not recommended mark were essentially as stated in the CO’s November 30, 2007 
letter withdrawing her recommendation for the applicant’s advancement.   

compelling  when  there  was  full  knowledge  that  there  would  be  a  measurable  leadership  gap 
given  your  three  immediate  supervisors  in  the  chain  of  command  would  be  rotating  over  the 
summer.  Your failure to act in response to this knowledge indicates a lapse in leadership could 
have avoided or at least mitigated many performance gaps and failures that did occur.  Instead of 
recognizing  the  broader  dynamic  recognizing  the  circumstances,  and  taking  ownership  of  the 
system, you chose to shelter behind your collateral assignment as the unit’s CSC.  You further 
added injury to the circumstances when the CSC collateral was rotated to another senior chief.  
You openly attacked  your fellow chief assigned to the Personnel Service Branch in an e-mail 
addressed to myself, the executive officer, and others outlining the gaps and failures noting them 
as a personal failure of your fellow chief.  In this attack you explicitly stated that he should not 
be recommended for advancement.  You failed to recognize and understand the importance of a 
professional relationship with your co-worker, and you did not develop administrative support 
networks to gain the cooperation and commitment of others to develop a win-win solution.  Even 
as of this date and with extended knowledge of the problem, our SPO’s (Servicing Personnel 
Office) PDR compliance rate remains at approximately 50%.   
 
“b. You have been assigned several projects, including a revision and reinvigoration of the “safe 
harbor” list as well as leading preparations for the upcoming MLC compliance inspection.  Both 
tasks  have  required  an  unreasonable  amount  of  guidance  and  constant  oversight  by  your 
supervisors.  This includes repeated and explicit direction on the former by the executive officer.  
As a senior chief, you are expected to exert command over your technical areas of responsibility 
sufficient to be able to lead and execute strategic initiatives.  Begun when you were the CSC and 
known as the “at risk” list, the “safe harbor” list is an activity that has broad implications to both 
the  unit’s  readiness  as  well  as  being  attentive  to  the  special  needs  of  individual  Coast  Guard 
members.  A failure to  recognize  and be  attentive to this need is significant.  You have been 
working  on  this  project  for  months,  and  I  understand  that  you  have  expressed  difficulties  in 
creating  and  advancing  an  organized  network  to  achieve  the  desired  outcome  (current  and 
accurate information), but this is exactly the talents expected of a master chief.  Furthermore, 
efforts  to  prepare  the  unit  for  the  upcoming  MLC  compliance  inspection  have  been  entirely 
lackluster and still require a strategy and plan of action to be developed and shared with other 
important internal stakeholders.   
 
“c. Last in general, it is observed that when assigned tasks you have a propensity of delegating 
them down or passing them to peers with little guidance or follow-up.  Some projects such as the 
Take Your Child to Work Day were successful.  Others, including oversight of the first 72 Hour 
Program and IDP development counseling, and data tracking failed to meet unit goals.  When the 
outcome failed to achieve the objectives, your general response was typical to identify fault or 
place blame in any source other than yourself or your actions.  This behavior is an example of 
poor leadership and does not invite nor stimulate team development as an esprit de corps within 
your working unit or as an example to others.”   
 
Applicant’s Reply to the CO’s Letter Withdrawing Advancement Recommendation 
 
On  November  30,  2007,  the  applicant  asked  the  CO  to  reconsider  her  decision  to 
 
withdraw the applicant’s advancement recommendation due to the CO’s failure to communicate  
her expectations of the applicant.  The applicant stated that she was disappointed to receive the 

CO’s assessment of her lack of leadership abilities too late for her to correct the discrepancies 
and  to  keep  her  career  from  being  tarnished.  “Your  revelations  were  never  communicated  or 
revealed to me in such a way that I could have avoided the damaging effect this would have on 
my career.  I was not afforded the level of respect and professionalism deserved . . . and for those 
reasons the organization failed me.”   The applicant noted the  following  accomplishments that 
were not noted in the CO’s letter: 
 

4.  My assignment as the SPO Branch Chief on 9 Oct 07, I am satisfied with the 
progress  being  made.    In  less  than  two  months,  I  have  completed  an  audit  of 
nearly 1200 PDRs while providing pay related services to our customers.  This 
audit was conducted because of two reasons, to  gain  an  accurate assessment in 
order  to  measure  the  progress  and  preparation  for  the  MLC  Compliance  Insp.  
Nearly  90  percent  of  the  discrepancies  of  the  PDRs  relates  to  the  annual 
verification  of  required  forms  because  they  are  due  their  annual  verification  in 
Nov.    I  am  confident,  once  the  verification  process  is  completed,  the  SPO  will 
make great strides toward significant progress.   
 
5.  I am equally proud of my role in moving the Chiefs’ Mess forward.  You may 
not be aware that prior to my assignment as your CSC there was no organized or 
respected Chiefs’ Mess.  The meetings were held quarterly with the only goal to 
vote on the SOQ [sailor of the quarter] and occasionally have breakfast with the 
CO.  The participation was less than 10 percent.  Since my involvement as the 
CSC, the Mess participation increased to over 90 percent and is actively involved 
and engaged with internal and external customers.  We have built relations and 
cohesiveness with other local community services and have a new forward focus 
of mission accomplishment and achieving organization goals.  It was through my 
leadership and guidance with the Chiefs’ Mess that our Individual Development 
Plans went from non-use to achieving 95 percent completion rate of counseling of 
Individual  Development  Plans.    Your  comment  on  these  efforts  still  resonates 
with me and I’m extremely proud of my accomplishments in the IDP area.  
 
6.  The reality of my efforts in preparation of the MLC compliance inspection is 
another area in which my focus is directed as achieving success as a team and as a 
unit.  Success as a team is my goal.  I have developed strategy and plans of action 
and  communicated  deadlines  with  other  important  internal  stakeholders.    As  of 
today’s date, I have received completed checklists for the following divisions and 
they stand ready for inspection:  Financial, Motor vehicles, Postal Administration, 
Supply,  Morale,  Work-Life,  and  Educational  Services.    I’m  impressed  with  the 
outstanding cooperation and teamwork from the different divisions in providing 
completed  checklists  often  before  the  established  deadline  date.    There  is  still 
much  work  to  complete  in  the  Personnel/Administration  division,  but  we  will 
succeed. 
 
7. . . . I take full responsibility for the past and present challenges presented to me.  
I also agree that there are gaps in my leadership which you have identified, and I 
will  continue  to  take  a  proactive  approach  in  my  development.    I’ve  made 

progress on many levels and my ultimate desire is to produce results, influence 
others  and  accomplish  missions.    I  regret  not  having  been  given  clear  focus, 
direction and the opportunity to improve my performance prior to 28 November.  
I’m certain I would have met and exceeded your expectations and I am certain I 
will meet or exceed your expectations as a master chief. 
 
8.    I  respectfully  request  you  to  allow  me  the  opportunity  to  advance  on  1 
December 2007.   

 
Applicant’s Article 138 Complaint against the CO 
 
 
On  December  21,  2007,  the  applicant  filed  an  Article  138  complaint  against  the  CO 
alleging  that  the  CO’s  withdrawal  of  the  applicant’s  advancement  recommendation  four  days 
prior  to  the  applicant’s  advancement  was  untimely,  without  proper  notice,  and  for  improper 
reasons.   
 
 
In  the  Article  138,  the  applicant  repeated  some  of  the  points  she  made  in  earlier 
communications with the CO (which are not repeated here).  The applicant asserted that the CO 
led  her  to  believe  that  she  was  relieved  from  the  command  senior  chief  position  so  that  her 
knowledge,  expertise,  and  leadership  could  be  focused  on  the  troubled  personnel  division,  to 
which she was assigned as branch chief on October 9, 2007.   
 
 
The applicant also stated that she was used as a scapegoat for the magnitude of problems 
and challenges that new senior staff faced after an unusually high turnover during the summer of 
2007.   She alleged that the CO unfairly blamed and criticized her for problems that long existed 
at the unit.  In this regard, the applicant stated the following: 
 
“(1)  My  position  as  ISC  [command  senior  chief]  was  determined  by  the  personnel  and 
administrative officer [as] needing full time attention, mainly because of ISC Alameda large area 
of  responsibility,  customer  service  base,  and  the  nature  of  what  the  [command  senior  chief] 
position entails.  I held this position until my relief in August 2007, and I was never assigned 
leadership managerial responsibility in the administrative division contrary to what is stated in 
[the CO’s] letter.  However, I was assigned leadership responsibility of the Servicing Personnel 
Office  (SPO)  in  October  2007.    There  was  a  gap  between  my  relief  and  current  assignment 
because of resistance to my new role and responsibilities within the branch.  The change took 
place, but only after a considerable amount of time, effort, persistence, and my refusing to be 
assigned only to a “special project” preparing ISC Alameda for the upcoming MLC compliance 
inspection  . . .  
 
(2)    One  of  the  many  roles  of  the  [command  senior  chief]  was  to  identify  and  hold  others 
accountable  to  standards  and  practices  that  enable  achievement  of  mission  obligations.    I 
identified  and  recommended  a  course  of  action  for  a  member  who  contributed  to  the 
mismanagement  of  resources  in  the  customer  service  center,  administration  and  servicing 
personnel  office  which  affected  customer  services.    I  chose  an  inappropriate  method  to 
communicate a problem, solution, and course of action in an email addressed to the member’s 

chain of command.  I have acknowledged the mistake, and apologized for my lack of judgment 
in dealing with this personnel issue . . . 
 
(3)    I  am  being  held  accountable  for  failures  beyond  my  control  such  as  the  leadership  gap 
created  by  departures  of  the  previous  executive  officer,  the  early  transfer  of  the  personnel 
division officer and the retirement of the personnel branch chief.  These departures were made at 
the command level and without my input.  I feel I am being held accountable for the impact of 
these senior leaders departing at the same time and to a standard of unrealistic expectation.  For 
example, I was assigned the troubled servicing personnel office in October 2007, which included 
personnel performance and conduct issues.  I directed an audit of 1200 personnel data records, 
and focused my attention on pay related issues, processes, and bringing the 1200 records into 
Coast  Guard  standards  which  [the  CO’s]  letter  stated  was  at  50%  compliance  rate.    The 
noncompliance of records developed long before my assignment to the SPO; therefore, my being 
held accountable is unfair.   
 
(4)  I feel it is highly unusual for [the CO] to have expectations of someone three levels below 
her in the chain of command without communicating with them.  To the best of my knowledge 
neither my division officer nor branch chief has indicated any such expectations.   
 
Decision on Applicant’s Article 138 Complaint    
 
 
The Commander, Maintenance and Logistics Command (MLC) was the General Court-
martial  authority  for  the  applicant’s  unit  and  therefore  the  reviewing  authority  (RA)  for  the 
Article  138  complaint.    The  RA  denied  the  applicant’s  Article  138  complaint  for  redress  on 
February 5, 2008.   The RA concluded that the CO’s actions were non-discriminatory, fair, and 
within her authority in withdrawing the applicant’s recommendation for advancement.  The RA 
stated  that  the  CO  developed  substantial  and  legitimate  concerns  about  the  applicant’s 
performance during the months leading up to November 2007.  Some examples were that the 
applicant completely turned away from her regularly assigned duties in the servicing personnel 
office, even though the applicant indicated to the investigating officer that she understood that 
initial assignment as command senior chief was a collateral duty.  The RA stated that when the 
CO assumed command she told the applicant to review COMDTINST 1306.1A which indicated 
that all undesignated command chief positions be collateral duty assignments.  The RA further 
stated that the MLC Pacific command master chief gave the applicant a copy of the instruction 
when it was issued in December 2006.   
 

 The RA noted that the applicant’s supervisor had contributed to confusion by expressing 
a  belief  that  the  command  senior  chief  position  should  be  full  time.    The  RA  also  noted  the 
applicant’s  use  of  the  email  with  disparaging  comments  about  a  chief  petty  officer  was 
inappropriate,  and  it  raised  legitimate  concerns  about  whether  the  applicant  possesses  the 
leadership  qualities  necessary  to  advance.    The  RA  stated  that  the  issue  with  respect  to  the 
applicant’s performance was clouded by the following: 
 

5.a.  The  ineffectiveness  of  the  [CO]  and  other  members  of  your  chain  of 
command 
in  clear  and 
understandable  terms  and  in  a  timely  fashion.    These  actions  were  inconsistent 

to  communicate  performance  concerns 

to  you 

with  my  strategic  direction  to  all  MLC  CO’s  to  communicate  and  manage 
expectations  of  performance  regularly  with  our  people  in  order  to  minimize 
surprises.  These actions were also inconsistent with your [CO’s] motto for ISC 
Alameda  of  “compassion,  courage,  and  commitment.”    The  poor  timing  of  the 
[CO’s] decision to not recommend you for advancement was very hurtful to you.  
The  situation  leaves  open  the  question  whether  you  could  have  overcome  your 
[CO’s] performance concerns if given sufficient time to correct them before the 
projected advancement date.  Regarding this issue, I must remind you that there is 
no entitlement to advancement.  Neither the Coast Guard nor the member is well 
served if the member is advanced, particularly to the highest enlisted grade, where 
a [CO] does not judge the member to be ready for advancement.  I extend this 
assertion  to  cases  where  a  [CO’s]  judgment  is  not  shared  with  the  member  in 
sufficient  time  to  allow  that  member  an  opportunity  to  correct  the  deficiency 
before the end of a marking period or a projected advancement date.  When our 
leaders correctly utilize our performance review process, the process should give 
our people time to correct performance deficiencies.  This is a crucial leadership 
issue to our service and one that is also very important to me.  Though in your 
case, the process did not work optimally, this does not compel me to change my 
position on the central issue.    
 
b.    Your  inability  or  unwillingness  to  deduce  negative  performance  feedback 
during events such as your [CO’s] frank discussion with you in June 2007 and the 
[CO’s]  action  to  replace  you  as  the  command  senior  chief  in  September  2007.  
This  appears  to  be  a  lack  of  situational  awareness  on  your  part.    Another 
noteworthy example of this is the response you sent to the executive officer after 
he appropriately responded to your inappropriate email cited above.  In reviewing 
your response, it is clear that you were either unwilling or unable to accept the 
executive officer’s criticism of your inappropriate email.  This is a professional 
development issue that I will personally discuss with you with my encouragement 
that you consider it as you continue to pursue a path to advancement.   
 

  * 

 

* 

* 

 

 
6.  [T]his case is more about your performance at a required level to advance than 
the command’s method of evaluation of your performance.     

 
Statements from Two Members of the Applicant’s rating chain (through summer 2007) 
 
 
A.  The applicant submitted a statement of support from CDR J, who was head of the 
Personnel  Division  and  a  member  of  the  applicant’s  EER  rating  chain.    CDR  J  stated  the 
following: 
 

1.    I  was  chief  of  the  Personnel  Division,  and  I  supported  [the  applicant’s] 
recommendation to MCPO [master chief petty officer], as I still do. 
 

2.    [The  applicant]  should  have  been  promoted  to  MCPO  as  scheduled  on  1 
December 2007, but her promotion was unfairly and untimely canceled just days 
before it was to take place. 
 
3.  I am shocked to learn of [the CO’s] withdrawal of her recommendation of [the 
applicant’s] advancement recommendation to MCPO and further disturbed by the 
bases  of  [the  CO’s  decision],  and  the  method  by  which  she  informed  [the 
applicant] of her decision. 
 
4.  The first time I learned of the alleged performance issues that [the CO] raised 
in  her  letter  of  withdrawal  of  promotion  recommendation  was  when  [the 
applicant] provided me that document for the purpose of her application to this 
Board.    Being  the  Chief  of  Personnel  during  that  time,  I  was  shocked  when  I 
reviewed its contents.  As Chief of Personnel, I was consistently informed on all 
matters of performance, discipline, and administrative issues on personnel within 
the ISC area of responsibility.   
 
5.  Since [the applicant] worked at ISC and directly under my leadership, it was 
surprising to say the least, to hear of [the CO’s] alleged concerns because they 
were  never  communicated  to  me  as  they  should  have  been.    [The  CO’s] 
allegations  are  also  contradictory  in  nature.    For  example,  [the  CO]  provided 
glowing  endorsements  on  [the  applicant’s]  application  to  attend  the  command 
master  chief  course,  membership  [on  the]  Commandant’s  Diversity  Advisory 
Council, application for command master chief silver badge” special assignment 
and [on] her evaluations. 
 
6.  [The CO] never mentioned or gave any indication, that she was not satisfied 
with [the applicant’s] performance, and her untimely and extreme action came as 
a  surprise.    I  never  questioned  [the  applicant’s]  performance,  character,  or 
leadership skills.  Her performance was never a concern, and certainly not to the 
extent that [the CO] stated.  I can emphatically state that whatever performance 
issues existed with [the applicant] were minor and in no way sufficient to justify 
the withdrawal of her promotion to master chief.   
 
7.  Furthermore, I was surprised to learn the method that [the CO] communicated 
her 
the 
advancement  was  scheduled  to  take  place.    [The  applicant’s]  advancement  was 
known  many  months  in  advance,  and  to  wait  until  days  before  her  scheduled 
advancement to inform [the applicant] was without just cause, and quite frankly 
disgraceful.  The administrative problems at ISC were long-standing and existed 
long before [the applicant’s] arrival, and to place blame and responsibility solely 
on [the applicant] was grossly unreasonable and unfair.   
 
8.  ISC was a high demanding, fast paced and reactionary environment.  Every 
senior  member  stationed  there  gave  more  than  100  percent  of  their  time  and 
efforts to the unit and its goals and missions.  [The applicant] was no different in 

to  withdraw  her  recommendation,  mere  days  before 

intention 

her contributions and efforts to the unique and complex challenges of the unit.  As 
a matter of fact, in addition to [the applicant’s] regularly assigned job, she was my 
“go-to” person for special projects.  [The applicant] did an outstanding job in her 
assignments.    To  repeat,  I  was  deeply  shocked  and  saddened  to  learn  of  [the 
CO’s]  assessment,  and  dismayed  that  [the  applicant]  was  not  afforded  an 
opportunity  to  address  [the  CO’s]  concerns  through  corrective  actions  or  even 
learn  about  the  alleged  concerns  in  a  timely  manner.    For  these  reasons,  [the 
applicant] is a victim of error, injustice, and quite frankly, unfair blame. 
 
9.    I  appeal  to  the  BCMR  to  correct  [the  applicant’s]  military  record  and 
recommend her promotion to MCPO effective 1 December 2007, as she deserved.   

 
 
B.  The applicant submitted a statement from her rating chain supervisor under penalty of 
perjury.    CWO  S  stated  that  he  is  retired  from  active  duty  after  a  thirty-one  year  career.    He 
stated  that  for  the  last  two  years  of  his  active  duty,  he  served  as  chief  of  the  administration 
branch and the applicant’s supervisor from the summer of 2005 until the summer of 2007.  He 
stated that over the course of those two years, he observed the applicant’s performance, collected 
performance-related  information,  provided  performance  feedback,  and  prepared  two  regular 
annual  evaluations  on  the  applicant.    On  each  evaluation  he  recommended  the  applicant  for 
advancement, which was approved by the chief of the Personnel Division, the executive officer, 
and the CO.  He stated that he was surprised and saddened to hear that the CO had withdrawn her 
recommendation for the applicant’s advancement to E-9 and that it was done just days before the 
applicant  was  to  be  advanced.    He  stated  he  was  surprised  to  hear  the  reasons  for  the  CO’s 
withdrawal of the advancement recommendation because as the applicant’s supervisor he had not 
heard them before.  “I would have expected that if [the applicant’s] performance was in question, 
I would have been told about it and I would have been tasked with documenting [the applicant’s] 
shortcomings and coming up with some kind of performance improvement plan.” According to 
CWO S, this never happened.  CWO S stated that the office was extremely busy with a wide 
range of responsibility and that there were bound to be mistakes but he wasn’t aware of a pattern 
of mistakes or complaints that was significant or could be attributed to a failure in leadership on 
anyone’s part—let alone the applicant’s.”  CWO S further stated the following: 
 

The issues raised in [the CO’s] letter are real issues but they were problems we 
had  wrestled  with  for  years.    For  example:    the  “safe  harbor”  or  “at  risk”  list 
sometime had as many as 60 names on it.  These folks were assigned to different 
duties  all  over  a  67-acre  facility  or  were  inpatient  or  were  at  home  recovering 
from  medical  treatment.    Names  were  added  to  or  removed  from  the  list  every 
week and just keeping up with the additions and deletions was a weekly chore, 
much less knowing what was actually going on with any one individual.  Some of 
the individuals were left behind by operational units for disciplinary reasons and 
were disinclined to keep in touch with the personnel office.  Further, some folks 
were left behind for medical treatment and with the advent of HIPPA the folks 
involved with medical treatment were also disinclined to share information with 
us.    This  is  only  one  example  but  I  cite  it  to  illustrate  that  this  long-standing 
problem  existed  years  before  the  applicant  appeared  on  the  scene  and  laying 
responsibility for its condition on her seems unfair and unreasonable.   

for  example: 

 
In addition [the Article 138 reviewing authority (RA)] letter stated confusion on 
the applicant’s part as to her roles and responsibilities as ISC’s command senior 
chief  and  Servicing  Personnel  Office  supervisor.    In  my  years  of  military 
experience,  and  having  worked  with  many  commanding  officers  at  different 
levels, it is common practice for [COs] to change, move or swap the resources 
within their control.  This flexibility allows and contributes to the effectiveness of 
their unit and because of ISC’s complexity, high pace demands, and the nature of 
much  of  CSC’s  work  to  be  “behind  the  scenes,”  the  collateral  position  was 
assigned full time to the applicant.  That was because many of the issues that call 
for  CSC  involvement  are  sensitive  and  must  be  handled  with  the  utmost 
discretion, 
  discipline  problems,  performance  problems, 
indebtedness,  violence  against  spouses  and  children,  sexual  abuse,  physical 
illness, substance abuse, etc.  ISC’s command cadre decided the position would 
be  better  served  full  time  and  assigned  the  applicant  the  job.    As  Chief  of  the 
Administration Branch,  I  reallocated [the applicant’s] position from the SPO to 
the  CSC  full-time  position  by  reorganizing  and  using  additional  resources  that 
were available to me at the time, while maintaining my role as [the applicant’s] 
direct supervisor.  [The applicant] absolutely didn’t turn away from her regularly 
assigned duties in the SPO, nor did she lack understanding of her job assignment 
or her chain of command.   
 
As [the applicant’s] supervisor for two years, I never observed any performance 
or  character  issues  that  gave  me  pause  to  think  that  she  was  not  ready  for 
promotion.  She was ready, and I strongly believe that she remains ready.   
 
In  summary,  I  feel  [the  applicant]  should  have  had  notice  of  [the  CO’s]  intent 
long  before  the  decision  was  made.    [The  applicant]  should  have  had  an 
opportunity to address the [CO’s] concerns long before the decision was made to 
withhold  [her]  advancement.    I  also  feel  the  grounds  for  the  CO’s  promotion 
recommendation  withdrawal  were  not  concerns  specific  to  [the  applicant’s] 
performance and were in no manner sufficient to justify the extreme action she 
took against the applicant.   

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On October 8, 2009, the Board received an advisory opinion from the Judge Advocate 
General (JAG) of the Coast Guard who did not make a firm recommendation.  He did furnish the 
board with the following observation: 

 
[B]ased  on  the  .  .  .  analysis,  if  the  Board  determines  the  applicant  suffered  an 
injustice  regarding  the  CO’s  decision  to  withhold  the  applicant’s  advancement 
recommendation—the  Coast  Guard 
  This 
recommendation is based on the facts, circumstances, an analysis of this particular 
case  “only”  and  is  not  indicative  of  a  shift  in  policy  or  purported  change  from 

recommends  granting 

relief. 

precedent.    If  the  Board  determines,  based  on  the  analysis  that  no  injustice 
occurred, the Coast Guard recommends denying relief.   
 
The  JAG  stated  that  the  BCMR  may  correct  errors  and  remove  injustices  in  a 
serviceman’s records pursuant to 10 USC § 1552(a).  Error can be defined as either legal or 
factual.  The CO withdrew her recommendation for the applicant’s advancement in accordance 
with Article 5.C.25.d. of the Personnel Manual which states that the only review of the CO’s 
decision to withdraw an advancement recommendation is a complaint under Article 138 of the 
Uniform  Code  of  Military  Justice  (UCMJ).    Therefore,  from  a  policy  standpoint,  the 
applicant’s  CO  acted  within  her  discretion  regarding  the  withdrawal  of  the  applicant’s 
advancement recommendation. However, “‘[i]njustice’, when not also ‘error’, is treatment by 
the military authorities, that shocks the sense of justice, but is not technically illegal.” Reale v. 
United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 1010, 1011 (1976).  In this particular case, the Board may conclude 
that the CO’s decision to withdraw her advancement recommendation before the applicant’s 
advancement was to become effective with no prior notice of deficient performance issues and 
no opportunity to improve is arbitrary and shocks the sense of justice.   

 
The  JAG  noted  the  general  policy  with  regard  to  the  enlisted  performance  review 

process as follows: 

 
The rating chain will evaluate each enlisted member on the required period ending 
date  to  assess  his  or  her  actual  performance  since  the  last  recorded  employee 
review.    The  rating  chain  shall  base  employee  reviews  on  how  the  member 
performed in each competency consistently throughout the period.  Normally, a 
single, isolated event (either positive or negative) should not drastically affect the 
marks assigned during the employee review period.  However, the  rating  chain 
must consider overall positive or negative impact of the event.   

 

In  this  regard  the  JAG  noted  that  the  applicant’s  supervisor  stated  that  he  never 
observed  any  performance  character  issues  regarding  the  applicant’s  performance.    He  also 
declared that the issues raised by the CO were problems the command wrestled with for years.  
The supervisor stated that no one else had the same or similar concerns about the applicant’s 
duty performance, leadership abilities, or her readiness for promotion to the next higher grade.  
The  supervisor  also  stated  that  the  grounds  for  the  CO’s  withdrawal  of  the  advancement 
recommendation  were  not  concerns  specific  to  the  applicant’s  performance  and  were  in  no 
manner sufficient to justify the extreme action taken against the applicant.   
 
 
The JAG noted that the declaration from the applicant’s department head (second in 
the rating chain) supports the applicant’s position and refutes the CO’s  decision.  The JAG 
noted that both the supervisor and department head recommended that the Board grant relief.   
 
 
The  JAG  further  noted  that  there  was  no  documentation  in  the  applicant’s  record 
supporting the CO’s allegations.  The JAG stated that the applicant’s first and only notification 
of  the  CO’s  intent  to  withdraw  her  recommendation  for  the  applicant’s  advancement  was 
November 26, 2007—five days before the advancement was to become effective.  According 

to the JAG, the CO knew or should have known the applicant’s advancement status since June 
26, 2006 and failed to mention any performance issues.   
 
 
The  JAG  stated  that  based  on  the  record  as  a  whole,  it  would  appear  that  from 
September 2007 to October 2007, a few minor incidences occurred between the applicant and 
the  CO  that  resulted  in  the  CO’s  decision  to  withdraw  her  advancement  recommendation.  
“Single isolated events should not drastically affect performance dimensions and runs contrary 
to the spirit of Article 10.B.6.a.  The Board routinely looks to documented supporting evidence 
with rating chain concurrences to substantiate a CO’s decision to withdraw an advancement 
recommendation.”6   

 

  

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On November 3, 2009, the Board received the applicant’s reply to the views of the Coast 
Guard.  She argued that the Board should accept the recommendation of the Commandant (JAG) 
because he is superior to PSC,  speaks on behalf of the Coast Guard, and his analysis is correct.    
 
 
The applicant stated that PSC adopted a very rigid and narrow view of the facts, law, and 
legal principles of the matter and should be disregarded.  The applicant strongly disagreed with 
PSC that because no statute or regulation was violated, no error or injustice exists that requires 
correction.  She stated that the intent of Congress in creating BCMRs was and remains to provide 
an equity-based review of applications.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

                                                 
6 Attached to the advisory opinion was a memorandum from the Commander, Personnel Service Center (PSC), in 
which the JAG only partially adopted its facts and analysis, but asked the Board to consider the memorandum 
along with the advisory opinion.  PSC recommended to the JAG that relief be denied for the following reasons: 
 

•  There is no statutory or policy requirement for a CO to provide advance notice of her withdrawal of a 

recommendation for advancement.   

•  The  applicant’s  CO  complied  with  the  provisions  of  Article  5.C.25.d.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  and 
correctly  acted  within  her  authority  when  she  withdrew  the  applicant’s  recommendation  for 
advancement to master chief on 29 November 2008. 

•  The CO’s recommendation for advancement is not subject to appeal. 

•  The Coast Guard is presumptively correct, and the applicant has failed to substantiate any error or injustice 

with regard to her record.   

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 Board agrees that under Article 5.C.25.d. of the Personnel Manual, the CO had 
the  authority  to  cancel  her  recommendation  for  the  applicant’s  advancement  if,  in  the  CO’s 
opinion,  the  applicant  failed  to  remain  eligible  for  advancement  and  was  not  likely  to  attain 
eligibility  prior  to  the  expiration  of  the  current  eligibility  list.    The  CO’s  advancement 
recommendation  carries  a  great  deal  of  weight.    However,  it  is  not  sacrosanct  and  is  open  to 
challenge  when  there  is  evidence  that  the  recommendation  is  erroneous  or  unjust  (abuse  of 
discretion).  In this case and under the particular circumstances presented here, the Board is not 
able  to  conclude  that  the  CO’s  withdrawal  of  her  recommendation  for  the  applicant’s 
advancement was an error or an injustice. 
 
4.    The  JAG  could  have  been  more  helpful  by  stating  a  clear  recommendation  as  to 
 
whether  injustice  exists  rather  than  simply  allowing  that  the  Board  might  conclude  that  an 
injustice exists in this case.  Nevertheless, the Board must address the question of injustice in two 
steps: 1) whether there is sufficient legal or factual justification to overturn the decision of the 
CO  and  2)  whether  the  impact  of  an  otherwise  lawful  action  is  a  manifest  injustice.    The 
applicant and the JAG merge the two issues to conclude that the RA and the CO were wrong or 
unfair in their promotion recommendation because of flaws in the job performance evaluation.  
While job performance may well be a factor, it is not the only contributor to the evaluation of 
prospective ability to serve in the most senior leadership positions.    
 
 
5.  The  CO  stated  that  she  lacked  confidence  in  the  applicant’s  ability  to  serve  in  the 
higher  rank  because  of  her  failure  to  respond  to  challenges  in  the  work  place,  inappropriate 
communications with and about co-workers, and other reasons.7  During the time in question, the 
applicant was relieved of her duties as a command senior chief and criticized by the Executive 
Officer for inappropriate personal attacks via email.  Her response to the Executive Officer was 
yet another attack.8  While this is not a perfect situation—the RA also concluded that the CO 
should have counseled the applicant—it is not one which convinces us that the CO’s decision 
would  come  as  a  shocking  surprise.    The  RA  noted  that  these  facts  suggest  a  very  bad 
“situational awareness” on the part of the applicant.  
 

6. The RA, in considering the Article 138 Complaint on the subject of the commander’s 
promotion  decision,  specifically  found  that  it  was  nondiscriminatory9,  fair  and  within  her 

                                                 
7  We  also  note  that  on  November  27,  2007,  the  applicant  made  a  written  request  that  the  CO  not  withdraw  her 
recommendation  for  advancement  and  on  November  28,  2007,  the  CO  and  applicant  met  and  discussed  her 
advancement.  On November 30, the applicant again submitted a written response to the CO’s withdrawal of her 
recommendation  for  advancement.    The  CO  thus  offered  ample  opportunity  to  clear  up  any  misunderstanding 
between the applicant and the CO before the promotion date.  This substantially lessens any sense of  shock that 
might be attributed to the decision to withdraw the promotion. 
 
8 We must also respectfully disagree with the JAG’s conclusion that these three events are “single” or “isolated.” 
9 We note that the applicant alleges discrimination but offers no specific facts relating to her case.  Moreover, the 
unrebutted conclusion of the RA is on record.   

authority.  We will not, based upon this record, overturn the clear conclusion of the RA which is 
closer in proximity and time to the facts in this case.  The only new evidence of any value that 
was not available to the RA is the letters from the applicant’s supervisors. Both departed their 
assignment  prior  to  the  pivotal  events  of  the  fall  2007.    Neither  addresses  the  critical  issues 
raised by the CO.  Finally no one has a right to promotion.  It comes only because the Coast 
Guard (speaking through the commander) has confidence in one’s ability to serve in the higher 
grade.  That was not the case for this applicant, and the Board is not persuaded that the decision 
to withhold her promotion is unfair or discriminatory.   
 

7. Having reached the conclusion that there is no factual or legal basis for a finding of 
injustice, we move to the question of whether an otherwise legal and factually based action is 
inequitable.  We note that, in Yee v. United States, 206 Ct. Cl. 388, 397 (1975)), an Air Force 
Captain met a promotion board with only one OER due to the fact that it took some five years to 
correct  an  unfair  discharge.    The  court  noted  that  all  actions  (placing  the  Captain  before  the 
promotion board and not selecting him) were legally and factually correct.  The impact of those 
actions alone was grossly unfair in that the Captain was competing with others who did not have 
the rather large gap in service on their records.  In that case, the court directed a remedy of the 
result  but  did  not  conclude  that  there  was  an  error  in  either  considering  the  Captain  or  not 
selecting him.  Here we must consider whether the fact that the applicant did not learn of her 
CO’s decision until days before the promotion was to take effect was a serious injustice.  Having 
affirmed  the  RA’s  decision  not  to  overturn  the  CO’s  action,  we  should  focus  on  whether  the 
impact of that decision to deny promotion was so egregious as to force us to affect a remedy.  
While the circumstances clearly are unfortunate, they do not rise to the level of injustice.  The 
Board must deny the applicant’s request that her record be amended to reflect a promotion.  The 
record  is,  however,  replete  with  evidence  of  an  improper  performance  review.    While  the 
applicant has no right to be promoted, she does have a right to a fair EER.  She is entitled to 
proper  counseling  during  the  period  of  observation.    The  EER  job  performance  observations 
differ from promotion recommendation in that job performance evaluations must be based upon 
true facts of past history rather than projections of future performance.   
 
 
8.  As the CO of the unit and the  approving official for the  applicant’s  EERs, the CO 
failed in her duties and committed an injustice against the applicant, as well as the applicant’s 
rating  chain,  by  not  informing  them  of  her  concerns  about  the  applicant’s  alleged  leadership 
deficit and lackluster performance during the year in which she observed that performance.  In 
this regard, the CO admitted in her November 29, 2007 letter that her decision to withdraw the 
applicant’s  recommendation  for  advancement  for  lack  of  leadership  ability  was  based  on  the 
CO’s full view of the applicant’s performance over the last year.  However, the CO apparently 
did not share these concerns with the applicant until November 26, 2007, five days before the 
applicant was due to be advanced to master chief on December 1, 2007.  Even worse, she never 
mentioned any of her concerns about the applicant’s performance to the applicant’s supervisors 
who  served  in  the  rating  chain  for  the  majority  of  the  reporting  period.    The  applicant’s 
supervisor,  a  member  of  her  rating  chain  until  the  summer  of  2007,  and  the  Chief  of  the 
Personnel Division, also a member of the rating chain until the summer of 2007, wrote in sworn 
statements that they  had no knowledge that the  applicant’s advancement recommendation had 
been  withdrawn;  nor  did  they  have  any  knowledge  that  the  CO  had  concerns  about  the 
applicant’s performance until contacted by the applicant for statements in support of her BCMR 

application.  If the CO failed to communicate her concerns and/or expectations to the applicant 
or the applicant’s rating chain, then it was reasonable for the applicant and her raters to assume 
that the CO was satisfied with the applicant’s performance, and they had no bases for concluding 
otherwise.    The  communication  requirement  is  key  because  the  EER  is  aimed  at  improving 
performance.  The applicant simply can not improve deficiencies if she does not know that they 
exist.    The  communication  element  is  not  as  critical  for  promotion  recommendations  for  two 
reasons 1) they may go to areas that a particular individual can never alter and 2) they are (as 
noted above) more prospective than retrospective in nature.  It was an injustice to the applicant 
for the CO to keep her dissatisfaction a secret over the course of a full year before issuing the 
EER.  The applicant had no notice or opportunity to change her performance to meet the CO’s 
expectations.     The Article  138  authority  recognized  that  the  CO  had  failed  in  her  leadership 
responsibility to the applicant and the command when he wrote the following:   
 

The ineffectiveness of the [CO] and other members of  your  chain of  command 
[failed] to communicate performance concerns to you in clear and understandable 
terms and in a timely fashion.  These actions were inconsistent with my strategic 
direction  to  all  MLC  CO’s  to  communicate  and  manage  expectations  of 
performance  regularly  with  our  people  in  order  to  minimize  surprises.    These 
actions  were  also  inconsistent  with  your  [CO’s]  motto  for  ISC  Alameda  of 
“compassion,  courage,  and  commitment.”  .  .  .  The  situation  leaves  open  the 
question whether you could have overcome your [CO’s] performance concerns if 
given sufficient time to correct them before the projected advancement date. . . . 
When our leaders correctly utilize our performance review process, the process 
should give our people time to correct performance deficiencies.  This is a crucial 
leadership issue to our service and one that is also very important to me . . .   

 

9.  As noted in the advisory opinion, there are no administrative remarks in the military 
record  documenting  counseling  or  any  shortcoming  in  the  applicant’s  performance.  The 
statements from the applicant’s rating chain are more persuasive on this issue because they had 
daily  responsibility  for  the  applicant’s  performance  and  the  opportunity  to  observe  it  just  as 
frequently if not more than the CO.   

 
10.    The  CO  committed  an  error  in  evaluating  the  applicant’s  performance  in  her 
November  27,  2007  letter  and  the  November  30,  2007  EER.    The  facts  and  circumstances 
presented here have convinced the Board that the June 26, 2008 EER is also unfair and should be 
removed.  In BCMR No. 284-90, the Secretary’s delegate approved the Board’s final decision 
that directed an officer evaluation report (OER) be removed from an applicant’s military record 
because that applicant’s performance was reviewed on the basis of an erroneous understanding 
by  his  supervisor  as  to  his  assignments.    In  that  case,  the  supervisor  operated  under  the 
assumption that the only assignments that the applicant received were those coming from her; 
but  actually  unknown  to  the  supervisor,  the  Chief  Counsel  was  giving  assignments  to  that 
applicant  on  a  regular  basis,  which  detracted  from  that  officer’s  ability  to  perform  the 
assignments  given  to  him  by  the  supervisor.    In  Docket  No.  284-90,  the  Board  concluded: 
“hence,  the  division  chief’s  evaluation  of  the  applicant’s  performance  was  prepared  in  factual 
error.”  As discussed above, the CO was evaluating the applicant based on an assumption that the 
applicant was the SPO chief, with collateral duty as the command senior chief, but the supervisor 

was under the understanding that the command senior chief assignment was the applicant’s full-
time job.  In this regard, the supervisor stated that he had reassigned the applicant’s SPO duties 
to other members of his staff.  It was the responsibility of the CO to resolve misunderstandings 
as  to  the  applicant’s  job  assignment,  particularly  if  she  had  the  opportunity  to  observe  the 
applicant  over  the  full  year  of  the  performance  period.      The  Personnel  Manual  places 
responsibility  on  the  CO  under  Article  10.B.1.b.  to  ensure  all  enlisted  members  under  their 
command receive accurate, fair, objective, and timely evaluations.  Also, Article 5.C.4.e. of the 
Personnel  Manual  places  responsibility  on  the  CO  for  the  execution  of  the  advancement 
program,  and  that  the  failure  to  properly  discharge  that  responsibility  reflects  adversely  on 
command performance.  See Article 5.C.4.e. of the Personnel Manual.   

 
 
11.  To summarize, the Board finds that the CO did not commit an injustice against the 
applicant by withdrawing her recommendation for advancement. The Board finds that the CO 
failed  in  her  leadership  responsibility  to  the  applicant  and  the  applicant’s  rating  chain  by  not 
communicating her dissatisfaction with the applicant’s performance to her rating chain. 10 
 
 
12.    The  applicant’s  request  that  she  be  promoted  should  be  denied.    The  applicant’s 
record should be corrected to remove the EERs dated November 30, 2007 and June 26, 2008.  
Both EERs are products of injustice and they contain erroneous marks and comments.   All of the 
applicant’s  allegations  have  been  considered  and  those  not  discussed  within  the  findings  and 
conclusions are not considered to be dispositive of the issue in this case. 
 
 
 
 

13.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be partially granted. 

 

 [ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] 

                                                 
10  Article  10.B.4.d.3.b.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  the  supervisor  “must  clearly  communicate  goals  and 
acceptable standards of performance to the evaluee before and throughout the marking period.”  CWO S and CDR J 
stated that she performed her task extremely well and they had no concerns about her leadership skills.   
 

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

ORDER 

 

a. Remove the EER performance marks dated November 30, 2007, plus the counseling 

b. Remove the EER performance marks dated June 26, 2008, plus the counseling receipt 

No other relief is granted. 

partially granted.   Her record shall be corrected as follows: 
 
 
receipt and any other associated documents that may be in the military record. 
 
 
and any other associated documents that may be in the military record.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 Francis H. Esposito 

 
 Erin McMunigal 

        

 
 Bruce D. Burkley