DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No.  2012-114 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX 

 

 

 
 

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  application  upon 
receipt of the applicant’s completed application on April 7, 2012, and subsequently prepared the 
final decision as required by 33 CFR § 52.61(c). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  February  1,  2013,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
 The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  record  by  raising  his  comparison  scale  
mark  from  the  third  block  to  the  fifth  block  on  the  rating  scale  in  section  91  on  his  officer 
evaluation  report  (OER)  for  the  period  July  1,  2009  to  May  11,  2010  (disputed  OER).    In  the 
alternative,  he  asked  that  the  entire  OER  be  removed  from  his  record.    He  also  asked  that  his 
non-selection  for  promotion  to  chief  warrant  officer-W3  (CWO3)  be  removed  from  his  record 
and that he be reconsidered for promotion to that grade.   
 
 
The applicant received the disputed OER while serving as the Support Department Head 
(SUPPO) on a Coast Guard cutter.  The applicant received a mark in the third block from the left 
on the comparison scale.  The mark rates the applicant between that of a “qualified officer” and 
that  of  “one  of  the  many  competent  professional  who  form  the  majority  of  this  grade.”    The 
applicant  described  his  mark  on  the  comparison  scale  as  a  “3”.    The  applicant  argued  that  the 

                                                 
1  The section 9 comparison scale of an OER is where the reporting officer rates the reported-on officer by 
comparing him with other officers of the same grade that the reporting officer has known during his or 
her career.  For CWOs, the comparison scale is composed of seven blocks:  the first block describes the officer as 
“unsatisfactory,” the second block describes the officer as “qualified,” the third block has no description, the fourth 
block  describes  the  officer  as  “one  of  the  many  competent  professional  who  form  the  majority  of  this  grade,”  the 
fifth block has no description, the sixth block describes the officer as “exceptional,” and the seventh block describes 
the officer as “distinguished.” 

 

 

comparison scale mark is inconsistent with other marks received on the OER and nothing in the 
evaluation  of  his  performance  on  the  disputed  OER  supports  the  comparison  scale  mark.  He 
argued  that  the  reporting  officer’s  marks  are  not  consistent  with  the  higher  marks  and  very 
complimentary comments in the supervisor’s portion of the OER. He argued there should not be 
such  a  stark  contrast  between  the  supervisor’s  and  reporting  officer’s  evaluations  on  the  OER.   
He  also  argued  that  the  comparison  scale  mark  is  inconsistent  with  the  comments  in  the 
Commandant’s Letter of Commendation that he received for his outstanding performance of duty 
from July 2008 to July 2010.  The applicant argued that he should have received a mark in the 
fifth block to the right.    He also contended that the rating chain committed an error by having 
him sign the disputed OER before the reviewer had signed it.   
 
 
The applicant alleged that the environment on the cutter was very stressful due to a fear 
of  reprisal.    He  stated  that  it  is  his  belief  that  the  negative  command  climate  due  to  previous 
command  incidents  resulted  in  OER  supervisors  and  reporting  officer  receiving  direction  to 
assign low comparison scale ratings and performance marks in preparing OERs.  He stated that 
several  officers  have  been  granted  relief  by  the  BCMR  because  of  “evaluation  inconsistencies 
that took place under the reporting officer’s command during similar time frames.”   
 

The applicant stated that he has never received a below average mark on any OER until 
he received the one under review.  He argued that without the low mark on the comparison scale 
it is  likely that he would have been promoted to  CWO3 because his  other OERs contains high 
marks.   
 
The Disputed OER 
 
 
portion, and the reviewer’s portion.   
 

An  OER  is  composed  of  three  parts:    the  supervisor’s  portion,  the  reporting  officer’s 

In  the  supervisor’s  portion  of  the  OER  the  applicant  received  marks  of  5s  and  6s,  with 
one  mark  of  4  in  “writing.”      The  comments  supporting  the  supervisor’s  marks  were  very 
complimentary.  
 

 

In  the  reporting  officer’s  portion  of  the  OER,  section  7  entitled  “Reporting  Officer 
Comments,”  contained  the  following  amplification  of  the  supervisor’s  evaluation  of  the 
applicant’s performance: 

 
The  applicant  did  well  in  a  challenging  Dept  Hd  position  as  .  .  .      SUPPO.  
Excelled  at  management  of  finance  procurement  &  supply  issues,  while  also 
expanding  knowledge  of  medical  &  food  service  operations.    Developed 
spreadsheet  tracking  tools  that  improved  tracking  of  cost  and  supplies.    Carried 
out significant KO oversight of overhaul of messdeck & galley, rack curtain and 
mattress  purchases;  ensuring  improvements  to  habitability  &  sanitation.    Well 
versed  in  CG  financial  web  applications.    Facilitated  [the  cutter’s]  meeting 
operational commitments.   
 

 

 

In  the  performance  categories  (section  8)  of  the  reporting  officer’s  section  of  the  OER, 
the applicant received marks of 4 in “initiative,” “judgment,”  “responsibility,” and “professional 
presence.”  He received a 5 in “health and well-being.”   The comments supporting these marks 
read as follows: 
 

Innovative  approaches  to  quality  of  life  issues;  developed  plan  for  and  helped 
with physical install of internal morale network.  Liaisoned with BSU Portsmouth 
to  carry  out  2010 Census for all members living  in  barracks or on ship; ensured 
100% completion of Census.  Dedicated to achieving the desired result for cutter 
and crew; worked closely with husbanding agent, JLATF-S, and Defense Energy 
Support  Center  to  coordinate  receipt  of  fuel  in  Cartagena,  CO-id’d  significant 
issues  with  2  day  delay  in  delivery  and  marginal  quality  of  fuel  that  resulted  in 
formal review of Sea Card fueling contract with vendor.  Expanded accountability 
for all Dept’l personnel; utilized performance probation and counseling to address 
issues with  at  risk SK2 and 2 FS3s, set  clear expectations and provided avenues 
for  improvement.    Expertly  id’d  errors  with  recurrent  files  resultant  from  req’ts 
for  HAZMAT,  safety,  and  property  verifications  –  directed  overhaul  of  all  files 
and instituted a single page template to minimize future occurrences.  Maintained 
excellent uniform appearance and grooming; projected good CG image to foreign 
officials  and  vendors  at  OCONUS  port  calls.    High  stamina;  regularly  exercised 
and encouraged others to do the same; followed and promoted healthy eating.   

 
 
As  stated  above  on  the  comparison  scale  in  section  9,  the  applicant  was  marked  in  the 
third block.  (The comparison scale is composed of seven blocks with the first block describing 
an  officer  as  “unsatisfactory,”  the  second  block  describing  an  officer  as  “qualified,”  the  fourth 
block describing an officer as “one of the many competent professional who form the majority of 
this  grade,”  the  sixth  block  describing  an  officer  as  “exceptional,”  and  the  seventh  block 
describing an officer as “distinguished.”)  
 
 
greater leadership roles and responsibilities as follows: 
 

In block 10 of the OER, the reporting officer described the applicant’s ability to assume 

Recommended  for  promotion  to  CWO3.   A  very  capable  officer.    Demonstrated 
strong  technical  expertise  in  management  of  significant  AFC-30  budget  and 
procurement responsibilities for execution of the same.  Exercised leadership and 
mentored 2 newly promoted CPOs over the course of marking period; effective at 
delegating  and  monitoring  diverse  work  outside  of  storekeeper  specialty.  
Recommended for future assignments where subject matter knowledge will be of 
best  benefit  -  comptroller,  procurement  or  contracting  positions  as  SFLC, 
FINCEN, or DCMS sub-units would be ideal.    
 

 
Evidence Submitted by applicant 
 
1. A Commandant’s Letter of Commendation dated July 23, 2010 and signed on behalf of 
 
the  Commandant  by  the  applicant’s  new  CO  of  the  cutter,  commended  the  applicant  for 
“outstanding performance of duty” for the period from July 2008 to July 2010.   

 

 

 

 

2. The applicant’s immediate prior OER from the same reporting officer on the disputed 
OER has no marks lower than 5 in the performance categories of the reporting officer’s section 
of  the  OER.    He  was  marked  in  the  fourth  block  on  the  comparison  scale,  and  he  was  highly 
recommended  for  promotion  in  block  10.    His  leadership  as  support  department  head  was 
described as solid.  His mentoring of junior officers was described as outstanding.  
 
3.  LTJG Q was a student engineer who served with the applicant on board the cutter for 
 
the period under reveiw.  He wrote that although he did not work directly with the applicant, he 
noted  his  commitment  to  the  unit  and  his  technical  expertise  in  budgetary  and  property 
management matters.  He also stated the following: 
 

tense  sometimes 

that 

the  environment  so 

We were under the command of some seemingly impersonal and micromanaging 
personnel,  making 
lines  of 
communication  were  not  open  between  subordinate  and  senior.    Even  when  the 
Command Chief – one of the most knowledgeable and respected people amongst 
the  crew  –  spoke  up  about  the  difficulties  of  the  environment,  he  subsequently 
received  extremely  low  marks,  despite  his  tireless  efforts  and  outstanding 
performance.    I  personally  was  never  given  mid-period  counseling,  so  my 
departing  marks  (which  I  was  given  on  my  departure  date)  came  as  a  surprise, 
especially  since  they  contained  a  “3”.   This  is  all  to  say  [the  applicant]  was  not 
alone;  I  believe  that  he,  among  several  others,  received  marks  that  he  did  not 
deserve.   

 
 
4. LTJG K served with the applicant and described him as a “truly . . . outstanding officer 
and [could] always be counted on to perform his duties to the absolute best of his ability, and he 
is a great leader to those that serve under his direction.  It was an honor to sail with him . . .  “ 
 
 
5.  LTJG M served with the applicant during the period under review.  He stated that the 
applicant  was  a  positive  force  for  the  junior  officers  despite  the  environment  of  distrust,  low 
morale, and frustration that existed at the unit created by the micromanagement style of the CO.  
LTJG M described the applicant as a good mentor, good leader, capable, and confident.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On August 28, 2012, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 

 
 
advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny relief.   
 
 
The  JAG  argued  that  the  applicant  has  failed  to  provide  cogent  and  clearly  convincing 
evidence  that  the  rating  chain  erred  in  submitting  the  applicant’s  OER  for  the  period  under 
review.  The JAG stated that the evidence from members of the rating chain suggests that they 
evaluated  the  applicant’s  performance  properly  in  accordance  with  the  Personnel  Manual.  
(Statements from the rating chain are summarized further down in this section.) 
 
   
The JAG stated that the comparison scale, in which the applicant was placed in the third 
block,  is  a  relative  ranking  of  CWO2s  the  reporting  officer  has  known  and  worked  with 

 

 

throughout  her career and requires no supporting comments.   The JAG stated that  the mark on 
the  comparison  scale,  as  supported  by  the  reporting  officer’s  declaration,  was  appropriate  and 
accurate based on her twenty year career.   
 
 
The JAG stated that while the applicant  signed the report before the reviewer signed it, 
there is no indication or evidence presented that this error had any impact on the content of the 
OER.   According  to  the  JAG,  there  was  no  change  in  the  OER  between  the  time  the  applicant 
signed it and the time the reviewer signed it.   
 
 
The  JAG  argued  that  since  the  applicant  has  failed  to  show  that  the  Coast  Guard 
committed  a  legal  error,  it  is  logically  impossible  for  him  to  make  a  prima  facie  showing  of  a 
substantial connection, or nexus, between the alleged errors and the Coast Guard’s decision not 
to select him for promotion to CWO3 before the selection board that convened in October 2011.   
 
Statements from the Rating Chain 
 

1.    The  supervisor  wrote  that  the  applicant  was  a  subject  matter  professional,  a  solid 
department  head,  and  a  reliable  shipmate.    He  stated  that  the  applicant  encountered  some 
challenges  in  his  department  during  the  period.    For  instance,  some  of  his  subordinates  were 
charged  with  violations  of  the  Uniformed  Code  of  Military  Justice  (UCMJ)  and  two  other 
subordinates  were  on  performance  probation.     There  was  also  an  ongoing  investigation  in  the 
applicant’s department because of missing property.  The supervisor stated that although he did 
not view the problems as leadership or performance related on the applicant’s part, he believed 
that the problems may have been the basis for the lower marks assigned by the reporting officer.  
The  supervisor  did  not  offer  a  comment  as  to  the  comparison  scale  mark  because  it  was 
subjective and based upon the reporting officer’s experience.   

 
2.    The  reporting  officer  stated  that  she  marked  the  applicant  in  sections  7-10  of  the 
disputed  OER  based  on  her  own  observations,  information  from  the  supervisor,  and  other 
information accumulated during the reporting period.   She stated that she marked the circle on 
the  comparison  scale  that  “most  closely  reflected  my  ranking  of  [the  applicant]  relative  to  all 
other of the same grade that I have known in my 20 year career.”   

 
The reporting officer stated that the applicant’s performance was acceptable as evidenced 
by the laudatory comments.  She stated that the marks and comments are accurate and reflective 
of the applicant’s performance.  The reporting officer stated that the applicant’s performance did 
not  meet  the  standard  for  higher  marks  and  that  one  incident  during  the  period  caused  her  to 
question his judgment.  She stated that the applicant submitted a financial report to the Finance 
Center  without  executive  officer  (XO)  or  commanding  officer  (CO)  review.   According  to  the 
reporting  officer,  the  financial  report  was  returned  by  the  Finance  Center  because  it  was 
incomplete, unprofessional, and contained numerous inaccuracies.  She stated that the applicant’s 
supervisor  conducted  a  supply  department  stand  down  and  reviewed  all  compliance  checklists 
for inconsistencies. The reporting officer also stated the following: 
  

Although  [the  applicant’s]  statement  and  the  statements  of  other  officers  qualify 
my  leadership  in  a  negative  light,  they  were  at  times  in  direct  opposition  to  my 

 

 

efforts to provide a positive shipboard experience.  Wardroom members, including 
those  [who  submitted  statements]  maintained  a  quote  book  aboard  [the  cutter].  
The quote book contained references to perverted, disgusting, and unprofessional 
behavior [of a sexual nature] in direct opposition to Coast Guard Core Values. . . .  
[The applicant] was in a position to stop this behavior and has admitted that junior 
officers  approached  him  to  discuss  what  to  do  with  the  book.    [The  applicant] 
took no action and failed junior officers by not stopping the unacceptable practice.   

The reporting officer asserted that the applicant received counseling and feedback on his 

 
 
performance throughout the marking period.   
 

 

The reporting officer stated that the provision of the Personnel Manual that called for the 
reported-on  officer  to  sign  the  OER  after  the  reviewer  had  signed  was  not  in  effect  when  the 
disputed OER was completed.  COMDTINST 1000.3 was not promulgated until September 29, 
2011.   The reporting officer stated that the disputed OER has all required signatures.  She stated 
that the applicant’s signature on the OER is not evidence of his agreement or disagreement with 
the OER but an acknowledgement that he had reviewed the OER.   
 
 
outlined in the Coast Guard Personnel Manual.   
   

3.    The  reviewer  for  the  disputed  OER  stated  that  he  followed  proper  procedures  as 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On November 13, 2012, the Board received the applicant’s response to  the views of the 
Coast  Guard.    He  stated  that  although,  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  “commanding  officers 
must  ensure  accurate,  fair,  and  objective  evaluations  are  provided  to  all  officers  under  their 
command,” he maintained that he did not receive an accurate, fair, or objective OER.  He denied 
that  he  was  counseled  throughout  the  reporting  period.    He  stated  that  on  one  occasion  he  sat 
down with the CO and XO to discuss the incident in which he sent a report to the Finance Center 
without  obtaining  the  XO’s  review.    He  stated  that  one  incident  does  not  establish  a  consistent 
pattern  and  no  other  incidents  are  mentioned  to  justify  the  non-competitive  OER,  except  for  a 
quote book that was found on the bridge.  With regard to the quote book, the applicant stated the 
following: 
 

This  quote  book  was  only  accessible  to  bridge  watch  standers.    I  did  not  stand 
deck watches and couldn’t possibly hold that qualification due to documented red 
green color blindness.  This quote book was brought to my attention by two junior 
officers  for  advice.    I  and  the  other  CWO  onboard  both  told  them  to  seek 
additional  guidance  from  the  operations  officer,  which  they  did.    They  also 
removed  the  book  from  the  bridge.  [BCMR]  Dockets  2011-035  and  2011-082 
both center largely on this same quote book.  Both of these Dockets also  clearly 
establish  that  the  time  frame  of  the  quote  book  is  outside  of  the  OER  marking 
period  that  I’m  being  held  accountable  for.    On  page  3  of  Docket  2011-035,  it 
states that in April 2009 this quote book  arrived  back on the bridge.  The rating 
period for the OER that I’m questioning is 7-1-2009 to 5-11-2010.  Docket 2011-
082 also states on page 3 that in April 2009 the quote book was somehow placed 

 

 

back  up  on  the  bridge.    Regardless  of  the  date  the  book  showed  back  upon  the 
bridge,  all  the  quotes  involved  were  previous  to  the  OER  in  question.   Again,  I 
state for the record, I was not a deck watch officer.  I do not understand why I’m 
being  held  accountable,  punished  for  something  that  I  did  not  have  access  to.  
After reading [the reporting officer’s] statement, it is clear that she is continuing 
to hold me accountable along with others for this quote book.  This at least sheds 
some light as to why she felt a 3 for a comparison scale may have been warranted.  
However, my part in this was to advise the officers.  I never made entries in this 
book.  Both of the dockets I have referenced indicate that measures were taken to 
remove  this  quote  book  however  [the  reporting  officer]  appears  to  continue  to 
hold many of the officers on board at the time accountable for it.   
 

  # 

# 

# 

 
There  have  been  6  BCMRs  submitted  covering  the  [reporting  officer’s]  time 
onboard as CO.  Of these, five have been granted relief either in full or in part. . . .  
I  bring  these  .  .  .    BCMR’s  to  light  to  establish  that  there  is,  most  certainly,  a 
problem  with  the  OER  process  during  the  two  years  that  [the  reporting  officer] 
was  the  CO.    With  so  many  OERs  adversely  affected  by  her  leadership  there 
should  be  no  doubt  that  accurate,  fair,  and  objective  evaluations  were  not 
provided.   

 
The  applicant  disagreed  with  the  comparison  scale  mark  and  stated  that  it  is  neither 
 
appropriate not  accurate.  He stated that some of the marks of 4 in  block 8 are inaccurate.  He 
stated that he received a 6 on the comparison scale on all of his subsequent OERs.   
 
 
The  applicant  submitted  a  statement  with  his  response  to  the  advisory  opinion  from  a 
chief boatswain’s mate (BMC), who stated that he was surprised to  receive 3s in  responsibility 
and  loyalty  and  a  recommendation  against  advancement  on  his  efficiency  evaluation  review 
(EER) for period ending September 2009.  The BMC stated that he was distraught by the EER 
and submitted an appeal and the reporting officer, who was the CO, granted him relief.   
 
 

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 submission 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 Board begins its analysis by presuming that the disputed OER in the applicant’s 
military record is correct and the applicant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the 
evidence that the OER is erroneous or unjust.  33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b).  For the reasons discussed 
below,  the  applicant  has  failed  to  prove  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  the  disputed 
OER is in error or unjust. 

 

 

 

3.    With  respect  to  evaluating  an  officer  on  the  comparison  scale  of  an  OER, Articles 

10.A.4.c.8.a. & d. of the Personnel Manual in effect at the time stated as follows: 
 

The reporting officer shall fill in the circle that most closely reflects the Reporting 
Officer’s  ranking  of  the  Reported-on  Officer  relative  to  all  other  officers  of  the 
same  grade  the  Reporting  Officer  has  known.    NOTE:    this  section  represents  a 
relative  ranking  of  the  Reported-on  Officer,  not  necessarily  a  trend  of 
performance.    Thus,  from  period  to  period,  an  officer  could  improve  in 
performance but drop a category. [Article 10.A.4.c.8.a.] 
 
No specific comments are required to support the Reporting Officer’s judgment in 
this  section.    However,  a  mark  other  than  in  the  center  three  circles  is 
strengthened  considerably  if  there  are  comments  in  the  report  from  which  one 
could reasonable draw a conclusion why this particular officer has been identified 
as different from the majority of this grade.  [Article 10.A.4.c.8.d.] 

 

4.  The applicant alleged that his comparison scale mark in the third block from the left in 
section  9  of  the  disputed  OER  is  erroneous  because  it  is  not  supported  by  any  other  marks  or 
comments  on  the  OER.  He  also  alleged  that  the  mark  is  inconsistent  with  the  marks  and 
comments assigned to him by the supervisor.  However, the Personnel Manual does not require 
any  correlation  between  performance  marks  and  the  comparison  scale  mark.    Article 
10.A.4.c.8.a. of the Personnel Manual, directs the reporting officer to fill in the circle that most 
closely  reflects  the  reporting  officer’s  ranking  of  the  reported-on  officer  relative  to  all  other 
officers of the same grade the reporting officer has known.  The provision further states that the 
comparison  section  scale  mark  represents  a  relative  ranking  of  the  reported-on  officer,  not 
necessarily  a  trend  of  performance.    Thus,  from  period  to  period,  an  officer  could  improve  in 
performance  but  drop  a  category.    In  light  of  the  guidance  from  the  Personnel  Manual,  a 
comparison scale mark seemingly inconsistent with the performance marks and comments on the 
OER is not necessarily erroneous.  The comparison scale mark represents the reporting officer’s 
judgment  of  where  the  applicant  ranked  when  compared  to  others  of  the  same  grade  that  the 
reporting officer has known during his or her career.  Therefore, while the applicant performed 
his duties well for the period under review, as noted in a July 23, 2010 Letter of Commendation, 
in the judgment of the reporting officer when compared to other warrant officers she has known, 
he rated a mark on the comparison scale in the circle between a qualified officer and one of the 
many competent professionals who form the majority of this grade.  The reporting officer stood 
by  her  evaluation  of  the  applicant’s  rating  scale  mark  in  a  statement  attached  to  the  advisory 
opinion.2 

 
5.    The  applicant  alleged  that  the  OER  process  during  the  reporting  officer’s  tenure  is 
suspect  because  6  different  officers  have  filed  applications  with  the  BCMR  and  that  5  of  them 
                                                 
2  In  BCMR  No.  1996-084,  the  Secretary’s  Delegate  wrote  that  she  was  reluctant  to  second-guess 
expressions of opinion or judgments in OERs by supervisors and reporting officers, who are entitled to a 
presumption  of  correctness,  where  there  is  no  legal  error.    The  Delegate  further  noted  that  OER 
comments  represent  the  opinions  or  discretionary  judgments  of  different  supervisors  and  reporting 
officers over a period of time.   

 

 

have received relief.  He cited BCMRs No. 2011-035 and 2011-082 and listed the names of two 
others but did not have their docket numbers. (Docket Nos. 2011-035 and 2011-082 are available 
on the BCMR’s electronic reading room and are the only ones discussed in this decision.)  The 
applicants  in  Docket  Nos.  2011-035  and  2011-082  alleged  among  other  things  that  the  quote 
book  incident  occurred  in  a  previous  reporting  period  and  should  not  have  been  mentioned  in 
their disputed OERs.3 The Board on the recommendation of the Coast Guard agreed that the CO 
had  violated  the  Personnel  Manual  by  commenting  on  the  quote  book  incident  in  the  disputed 
OERs  because  the  incident  occurred  in  an  earlier  reporting  period.    In  the  applicant’s  case,  the 
OER does not mention the quote book or make any references to it.  While the CO mentioned the 
quote book in her statement to PSC and stated that the applicant knew of the quote book and did 
nothing to stop it, she never states that the marks assigned to the applicant on the disputed OER 
were based on that incident.  Moreover, the CO gave the applicant higher marks on the OER he 
received  soon  after  she  discovered  the  quote  book.    The  applicant  has  offered  insufficient 
evidence to prove that the marks on the disputed OER were based on the quote book incident.   

 
6.  The applicant submitted statements from three officers who served with him onboard 
the  cutter.    Two  of  them  corroborated  the  applicant’s  contention  that  the  environment  on  the 
cutter was strained due to the CO’s micromanagement style, which created distrust between the 
leadership and the crew.  All three officers wrote that the applicant exercised good judgment in 
his  duties,  was  a  good  leader  and  mentor,  and  that  he  was  a  responsible  officer.    However,  the 
supervisor for the disputed OER noted in his PCS statement that the applicant encountered some 
problems during the reporting period under review.  In addition, in the comments to section 8 of 
the OER, the reporting officer wrote that she “id’d significant issues with 2 day delay in delivery 
and  marginal  quality  of  fuel  that  resulted  in  formal  review  of  Sea  Card  fueling  contract  with 
vendor.”    This  observation  by  the  CO  may  have  had  an  impact  on  the  marks  assigned  to  the 
applicant, since the event was significant enough to make it into the applicant’s OER comments.  
The  statements  from  non-rating  chain  members  are  insufficient  to  prove  that  the  marks  and 
comments in the reporting officer’s portion of the OER are inaccurate.      
 
7.  Further evidence favoring the accuracy of the OER, is the lack of a finding by CGPSC 
 
of a substantive error upon its review of the disputed OER.  Article 10.A.4.j.2. of the Personnel 
Manual  states  that  during  the  review  of  an  OER,  CGPC  should  pay  particular  attention  to 
inconsistencies between the numerical evaluations and written comments to ensure that the OER 
has  been  prepared  in  accordance  with  the  officer  evaluation  system  guidelines.    There  is  no 
indication that CGPSC found any irregularity with the disputed OER. 
 
8.   ALCGOFF  024/09  issued  on  February  27,  2009,  required  the  reported-on  officer  to 
 
sign the OER before it is sent to CGPSC. The ALCGOFF does not state that the reviewer must 
sign the OER before the reported-on officer signs. The reported-on officer’s signature meant only 
that  the  applicant  had  reviewed  the  OER  and  not  that  he  agreed  or  disagreed  with  it.     As  the 
reporting officer stated the manual (COMDTINST 1000.3) that calls for the reported-on officer 

                                                 
3 The applicants in Docket Nos. 2011-035 and 2011-082 also alleged that the CO directed the members of the rating 
chain to assign lower marks than they otherwise would have because the CO believed the two officers were involved 
with a quote book incident that contained some vulgar sexual statements.  The Board on the recommendation of the 
Coast Guard agreed that the  CO  had violated the Personnel Manual by directing the rating chain to assign certain 
marks.   

 

 

to  sign  the  OER  after  the  reviewer  signed  it  was  not  promulgated  until  September  29,  2011.  
Therefore, no error occurred because the applicant signed the OER before the reviewer did. 
 

9.    Since  the  applicant  has  failed  to  establish  an  error  or  injustice  with  respect  to  the 
disputed  OER,  there  is  no  basis  for  the  Board  to  consider  removing  the  applicant’s  failure  of 
selection for promotion to CWO3. 
 
 
 

10.  Accordingly, the application should be denied.   
  
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 

 
 
  

 
 
 

 

 

 

 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his  military 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 
 
 Troy D. Byers 

 

 
 
 Lillian Cheng 

 

 
 Frank E. Howard 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

record is denied.