DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
BCMR Docket
No. 2001-094
Application for Correction of
Coast Guard Record of:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
5xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
FINAL DECISION
ULMER, Chair:
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 docketed on June 5, 2001, upon the
BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s complete application for correction of his military
record.
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case.
The applicant, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, asked the
Board to correct his record by modifying his officer evaluation report (OER) for the
period from February 1, 2000 to May 21, 2000 (disputed OER).
This final decision, dated April 11, 2002, is signed by the three duly appointed
EXCERPTS FROM RECORD AND SUBMISSIONS
The applicant requested that the disputed OER be modified by raising the mark
from 3 to 5 in block 8.e., the Health and Well-being category of the OER. This category
measures an officer’s “ability to invest in the Coast Guard’s future by caring for the
physical health and emotional well-being of self and others.” There is no expressed
predetermined standard for a mark of 3 on the OER form. Therefore, the standard for 3
would be a combination of the predetermined standards for 2 and 4. The standard for 2
states, in part, as follows: “Failed to meet minimum standards of . . . sobriety.” The
predetermined standard for a 4 states in pertinent part: “Maintained weight standards.
Committed to health and well-being of self and subordinates.”
The applicant stated that there were no comments to support the mark of 3 in
this category, but there were comments to support his request for raising the mark to a
5. He claimed that the following comment supported raising the 3 to 5: “Maintained
order and discipline during mid-patrol break confrontation between several ship’s
crewmembers & local residents . . . Held offending crewmember accountable by placing
individual on report.”
Although not mentioned by the applicant, the comments supporting the Personal
and Professional Qualities section of the OER, of which health and well-being is a part,
also contained the comments: “Uniform appearance below standard during per[sonnel]
inspection. Set bad example for crew. Prof[essional] demeanor lacking in several
dif[ferent] situations . . . Failed to use alcohol responsibly & as a result reported 4 hours
late for work on duty day. . . [First] alcohol incident.”
Views of the Coast Guard
On October 29, 2001, the Board received an advisory opinion from the Chief
Counsel of the Coast Guard. He recommended that the Board deny relief in this case
for lack of proof and merit. Attached to the advisory opinion was a memorandum from
the Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command, the reasoning of which was
adopted by the Chief Counsel.
CGPC stated that Article 10.A.4.c.7 of the Personnel Manual states that “the
reporting officer shall include comments citing specific aspects of performance behavior
for each assigned mark that deviates from a 4. Comments should be consistent and
compare reasonably with standards marked on the performance dimensions in the
evaluation area.” CGPC stated that based on the reporting officer’s comment that the
applicant’s failure to use alcohol responsibly resulted in his reporting to work four
hours late supported the 3 in health and well-being since sobriety is included in that
dimension. He stated that the comments as written do not support a higher mark in
this dimension.
The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant had failed to overcome the
presumption that his rating officials acted correctly, lawfully, and in good faith in
evaluating the applicant’s performance under the Coast Guard’s Officer Evaluation
System. See Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (1992). Accordingly, the
applicant has failed to prove that the mark of 3 in health and well-being is in error or
unjust.
Applicant's Response to the Views of the Coast Guard
with an invitation for him to respond. He did not submit a response.
On November 2, 2001, a copy of the advisory opinion was sent to the applicant
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the
applicant's submissions and military record, the Coast Guard's submission, and
applicable law:
United Stated Code, and the application was timely.
1. The Board has jurisdiction of this case pursuant to section 1552 of title 10,
2. The applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the
mark of 3 in the health and well-being category was in error or unjust. He asserted that
a comment about his handling of a confrontation between crewmembers and local
residents during a patrol break supports a mark of 5 in this category. An officer’s
misuse of alcohol must be considered.
3. The Board cannot say that the 3 in health and well-being is inconsistent with
the comments. The OER states that the applicant was four hours late for work because
of his misuse of alcohol. Apparently, the reporting officer found that this negative
event was significant enough to mention in the applicant’s OER and marked him
accordingly.
4. The applicant has not produced any evidence showing that event did not
occur. The Board finds that the comments about the applicant’s misuse of alcohol
support the mark of 3 in health and well-being.
5. Accordingly, the applicant’s request for relief should be denied.
[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE]
his military record is denied.
Terence W. Carlson
Robert A. Monniere
Mark A. Tomicich
The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of
ORDER
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2006-035
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2009-013
4 All Coast Guard officers are evaluated by a “rating chain” of three superior officers, including the Supervisor, who assigns the marks for the first thirteen performance categories on an OER and supports them with written comments; the Reporting Officer—normally the Supervisor of the Supervisor—who assigns the last six marks, including the comparison scale mark, and supports them with written comments; and the Reviewer, who reviews the OER for consistency and compliance with regulation and...
CG | BCMR | Alcohol and Drug Cases | 2009-185
The PSC stated that the fact that the State dismissed the charge against the applicant and expunged the arrest from his record does not negate the alcohol incident because the definition of the latter does not require any arrest or conviction. Statement of CDR E, Past CO of the MLEA incident, stated that CDR E, who was the applicant’s commanding officer at the time of the alleged alcohol while the State of xxxxxx order for destruction of arrest records is clearly in their purview,...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 1998-004
The applicant received a mark of 4 (on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being the poorest performance level) for block 9.e., which is titled “Health and Well-Being” and which is expressly required to reflect an officer’s use of alcohol as well as his or her weight and effort to care for his or her health during the rating period. The Chief Counsel alleged that “[i]n foregoing this timely opportunity, Applicant’s failure to submit an OER reply was tacit indication that he accepted the rating...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2009-034
This final decision, dated June 18, 2009, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS First Disputed Officer Evaluation Report (OER) The applicant asked the Board to correct his OER for the period May 1, 2005, to May 31, 2006 (first disputed OER) by raising his comparison scale mark in block 91 to show that he was marked as an “excellent performer; give toughest, most challenging leadership assignments” rather than as a “good performer; give tough challenging...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2005-162
This command determined that alcohol was not a factor in the incident. follows: The reporting officer evaluated the applicant's potential for future service as While [the applicant's] performance of duties was satisfactory during the reporting period, his personal conduct while off-duty was questionable and demonstrates a reluctance to acknowledge his responsibilities as an officer when he is not at work or on duty. The Coast Guard recommends, and the Board agrees, that the disputed...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2009-230
The reporting officer’s letter further stated that the NJP aside, “the applicant’s achievements and performance this period were not remarkable,” and that “If anything, [the applicant’s] final marks were higher, not lower, than what was merited based on his performance.” The reporting officer stated that taking everything into account, “a mark of 3 (“Fair performer: recommended for increased responsibility”) was the correct mark in block 9 (Comparison scale).” PSC stated that the reporting...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2007-121
Officer did not evaluate others during reporting period. In Block 10, the reporting officer did not recommend the applicant for promotion, operational assignments, or positions of increased responsibility, and instead wrote, “His leadership and professional skills are poor.” The reviewer authenticated the OER without comment. The reporting officer declared that the disputed OER was based on the applicant’s performance as measured against the OER standards expected of all Coast Guard...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2002-101
The third OER that the applicant received is the disputed OER. SUMMARY OF APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS The applicant alleged that the disputed OER is invalid because it was not pre- pared by his published rating chain; an unqualified civilian was allowed to rate him as his supervisor; the supervisor failed to keep a record of his performance during the evaluation period; he received no mandatory counseling sessions at the beginning and end of the period; and the OER’s numerical marks are...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2007-120
2 Officers are evaluated by a “rating chain,” which normally includes a Supervisor, who is normally the person to whom the Reported-on Officer reports on a daily basis and who completes the first 13 numerical marks in an OER and their supporting comments; a Reporting Officer, who is normally the Supervisor’s Supervisor and who com- pletes the remaining marks and comments in an OER; and the Reviewer, who is normally the Reporting Officer’s The applicant stated that LT D gave her a mediocre...