DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
 
Application for Correction of  
Coast Guard Record of: 
 
 
 
    

 
 
 
BCMR Docket  
No. 2001-133 
 

FINAL DECISION 

This  final  decision,  dated  February  19,  2003,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

 
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  September  27,  2001, 
upon the BCMR’s receipt of the applicant's complete application for correction of her 
military record. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 
 
The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  her  record  by  removing  an  officer 
evaluation  report  (OER)  for  the  period  October  X,  XXXX,  to  March  XX,  XXXX 
(disputed semi-annual OER) and a special OER for the period October XX, XXXX to 
January XX, XXXX (disputed special OER).  In addition she requested the removal of 
a letter of reprimand dated January XX, XXXX, and an administrative remarks (page 
7)  dated  January  XX,  XXXX,  revoking  her  authorization  to  wear  the  cutterman 
insignia and carry small arms.  She further requested to be reinstated on active duty1 
and to be promoted to the rank of lieutenant junior grade (LTJG). 
 
The applicant began active duty on January 8, 1998.  She reported to the cutter 
 
on  XX  X,  XXXX,  where  she  received  the  disputed  OERs.    She  was  honorably  dis-
charged on XXXX XX, XXXX, due to miscellaneous/general reasons.  
 

EXCERPTS FROM RECORD AND SUBMISSIONS 

 

                                                 
1      The  1999 lieutenant junior grade (LTJG) selection did not select the applicant for promotion and 
recommended  that  the  Commandant  revoke  her  commission  because  her  service  in  the  grade  of 
ensign  was  unsatisfactory.  The  Commandant  revoked  the  applicant's  commission  under  Article 
12.A.13.b. of the Personnel Manual. This provision states that the Commandant may revoke the com-
mission  or  vacate  the  temporary  appointment  of  an  ensign  serving  in  his  or  her  first  three  years  of 
commissioned  service  who  has  failed  to  be  selected  for  promotion to LTJG and whom the selection 
board determines to be serving in an unsatisfactory manner.   
 

 
The applicant alleged that during her time aboard the cutter, the CO who was 
also the reviewer for the disputed OERs, created a hostile working environment.  She 
stated that he treated the female junior officers differently than the male officers.  She 
stated  that  the  CO  repeatedly  subjected  her  to  discriminatory  conduct  from  mid 
XXXXXXXXX until XXXXXXXXXX, the date she was removed from the XXXX.  She 
asserted that as a result of the hostile atmosphere on the XXXXX, she felt isolated and 
desperate.  She acknowledged that in late December XXXX and mid-January XXXX 
she  became  involved  in  an  unduly  familiar  relationship  with  a  second  class  petty 
officer but believes this would not have happened if she had not been subjected to a 
hostile,  isolated  environment.      She  offered  the  following  as  examples  of  the  CO's 
hostile and discriminatory treatment: 
 
 
a.)    "[The  CO]  openly  exhibited  before  command  personnel  his  patriarchal 
behavior especially through his religious beliefs, to include his perception of divorce, 
motherhood, and where a female belonged . . . [The CO] condemned me repeatedly 
for what he considered my lack of knowledge and further subjected me to questions 
and suggestions as to how I ate and what I should eat, how often I ate . . . and how I 
worked out."   
 
 
b.) The CO subjected her to degrading sexual comments, such as:  "Do I need 
to  come  over  there  and  change  your  diapers?"  "Do  I  need  to  come  up  there  and 
change your diapers?" or "Do you want me to change your diapers?"  She claimed 
that  the  environment  created  by  the  CO  encouraged  enlisted  members  to  be 
disrespectful to her.  As an example, she stated that a chief petty officer told her on 
the  bridge  that  she  was  "lower  than  whale  s---."    She  stated  that  she  received  no 
support from the command.  She stated that in September XXXX, a male officer was 
sent  to  a  Law  Enforcement  Officer  Boarding  School  course  that  she  had  been 
scheduled to attend.   
 

c.) She was required to work under extremely difficult conditions, frequently 
working 18 hours per day as well as maintaining a 1 in 3 duty rotation both inport 
and underway.  She claimed that she stood duty longer than anyone else on board 
because  she  graduated  from  officer  candidate  school  (OCS)  rather  than  having 
graduated from the Coast Guard Academy. 

 

Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP) 
 

On January XXXXX, the applicant was charged with a violation of Article 134 
(fraternization)2 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and Article 92 (fail-

                                                 
2   This charge read "In that [the applicant], did, at . . . on or about 1/18/99, knowingly fraternize with 
[an enlisted male], on terms of military equality, to wit:  They were seen hanging out together at the 
Navy Lodge during the evening, and were later found alone in the same room after midnight." 
 

ure to obey a general regulation)3 of the UCMJ.  On the same date, the CO ordered a 
preliminary  NJP  investigation  to  determine  the  circumstances  of  the  applicant's 
alleged involvement with a petty officer of her division (hereafter referred to as PO-
1).  The executive officer (XO) was appointed as the investigating officer (IO).  The IO 
reported his opinion that the applicant had fraternized on terms of military equality 
with the PO-1.  He recommended that the charges be disposed of at NJP. 
 

The IO attached to the investigative report a statement from a chief petty offi-
cer stating that he and the command master chief had counseled the applicant earlier 
about  spending  too  much  time  with  another  second  class  petty  officer  not  in  her 
division (hereafter referred as PO-2) and about the policy prohibiting fraternization.  
The IO also attached to the investigative report two interviews he conducted with the 
PO-1 and his NJP representative.  The PO-1 admitted in these interviews that he and 
the  applicant  had  contact  on  several  occasions  in  December  XXXX  and  January 
XXXX.  This contact included kissing on one occasion and some additional romantic 
behavior on another occasion.  The PO-1 also indicated that he and the applicant had 
planned in advance for one of these encounters.  The PO-1 admitted that he and the 
applicant were discovered together in a Navy lodge room on or about January 18, 
XXXX, during patrol break.  (The PO-1 received NJP for his part in this prohibited 
relationship.) 

 
On  January  XX,  XXXX,  the  applicant  was  taken  to  NJP  for  engaging  in  and 
maintaining  a  prohibited  relationship  with  an  active  duty  enlisted  member  of  her 
division.  As punishment she received a punitive letter of reprimand (LOR) dated X 
XXXX, which has been included in her military record.4  The LOR reads as follows: 

 
You  are  hereby  reprimanded  for  your  conduct  during  [the  cutter's] 
inport  from  XXXXXX  through  XXXXX,  and  subsequent  deployment 
and mid-patrol breaks from XXXX through XXXXXX.  During this time 
period you engaged in and maintained a prohibited relationship with 
an active duty Coast Guard petty officer  . . . assigned to your division 
[on  the  cutter].    When  questioned  about  your  personal  relationship 
with the petty officer, you initially deceived the command by denying 
the  relationship,  when  you  were  actually  involved  in  a  prohibited 
romantic  relationship  with  that  service  member.    On  XXXXXX,  while 
the ship was in Curacao for a patrol break, you had sexual contact with 
this petty officer at a local hotel.  Furthermore, on XXXXXXX while on 

                                                 
3   This charge read "In that [the applicant], did, at  . . . on or about 1/18/99, fail to obey a regulation, 
to wit:  Section 8.H., U. S. Coast Guard Personnel Manual, date 9/14/98, by having an inappropriate 
personal relationship with [an enlisted male]." 
 
4   The CO also included as punishment the removal of the applicant's temporary cutterman insignia; 
the removal of her small weapons qualifications; a recommendation that she be evaluated for retention 
in the service; and her removal from the ship. 
 

liberty . . . you went to the Navy Lodge on base and spent time alone in 
a room with the same member, engaged in fraternizing behavior.   
 
Your conduct was contrary to service custom, unit command philoso-
phy, Coast Guard policy, and good order and discipline in the armed 
forces  --  especially  considering  you  are  a  commissioned  officer  and 
were the senior person in this relationship.  In addition, you set a poor 
example for your shipmates.  Your unsatisfactory conduct resulted in 
non-judicial  punishment  (NJP)  for  violation  of  Article  134  [Uniform 
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)] (fraternization). 

 
 
The applicant claimed that the LOR is erroneous and should be removed from 
her  record  because  it  is  dated  January  XX,  XXXX  but  reprimands  her  for  conduct 
occurring through October XXXX.  She denied that she had sexual intercourse with 
PO-1.  She acknowledged that she displayed inappropriate conduct by being with the 
PO-1 on or about XXXXX, and XXXXXX.5  She denied that she fraternized between 
October  16,  1998  and  December  11,  1998  or  between  December  12,  1998  and 
December 23, 1998.   
 
 
The applicant claimed that during the NJP proceedings, the CO required all 
officers  and  chiefs  to  attend  the  proceeding,  except  for  the  two  male  officers  who 
were also accused of fraternizing.  She stated that the CO violated the privacy act by 
inappropriately referring to her marital status and speaking about her family.   
 
 
The applicant stated that the CO treated her case differently than he did two 
male officers who had fraternized with enlisted women.  She stated she learned that 
the  CO  instructed  the  entire  crew  not  to  have  any  contact  with  her  but  did  not 
demand the same for the two male officers.  She stated that both of the male officers 
were given the opportunity to continue on with their careers after NJP, but the CO 
was determined to end her career.   
 
Special OER 
 
 
Subsequent  to  the  NJP,  the  applicant  was  given  a special OER.  She alleged 
that it should be removed from her record because the rating chain members were 
"disqualified" from carrying out their OER responsibilities on the ground that they 
                                                 
5   The applicant's military record contains a page 7 dated June 11, 1998, reminding the applicant, who 
had just reported to the cutter, about the Commandant's policy (Article 8-H of the Personnel Manual) 
with respect to interpersonal relationships.  She acknowledged the following entry:   "a. Romantic rela-
tionships between crewmembers are inappropriate, unacceptable, and not allowed under Coast Guard 
policy  when  members  are  assigned  to  the  same  cutter.    Romantic  relationships  outside  of  marriage 
between  commissioned  officers  and  enlisted  personnel  [are]  prohibited  and  are  punishable  in 
accordance  with  the  UCMJ.    b.    Personnel  finding  themselves  involved  in  or  contemplating  an 
unacceptable relationship should report the situation and seek early resolution from their supervisor, 
commanding officer, command enlisted advisor, or chaplain." 
 

were interested parties to the preliminary NJP investigation, rendering them unable 
to  provide  a  fair,  unbiased,  and  accurate  evaluation  of  her  character  and 
performance.    She  stated  that  the  problems  identified  with  her  performance  in  the 
OER  were  not  documented  or  substantiated  and  that  she  had  received  no  written 
counseling sessions.   
 
 
The special OER was derogatory with a mark of 1 (on a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 
being  the  highest)  in  block  9;  marks  of  2  in  professional  competence,  adaptability, 
developing others, directing others, workplace climate, judgment, responsibility, and 
professional presence; and marks of 3 in looking out for others and teamwork.  The 
applicant challenged the following italicized portions of the comments on the special 
OER as being inaccurate. 
 

[Block 3 comments]  Taken to Captain's Mast in accordance with Article 
15, UCMJ and awarded non-judicial punishment for violation of Article 
134 (fraternization).  Over the period of the last three months, [the applicant] 
carried on a prohibited sexual/romantic personal relationship with a TC26 who 
was a mbr of her division.  Non-judicial punishment imposed as follows:  
Punitive  Letter  of  Reprimand,  removal  of  qualification  for  temporary 
cuttterman's pin, removal of small arms qualification, immediate relief 
of all assigned duties (including Communications, Officer, NAFA offi-
cer, and Official Mail Manager) and removal from the ship.  [Member's] 
professional competence was compromised by failure to adapt to and 
comply with CG regulations despite repeated indoctrination and coun-
seling.  Failed to modify personal behavior to comply with CG policy 
[with regard to] interpersonal relationships.  Failed to comply with fun-
damental  [requirement]  to  abstain  from inappropriate romantic relationships 
[with] members of opposite sex at same unit [in accordance with Chapter] 8-H 
of  the  [Personnel  Manual];  used  position  to  pursue  relations  w/two  married 
enlisted crewmembers.  Lack of credibility exacerbated by failure to qualify as 
inport or underway OOD [officer of the deck].   

 

romantic 

leadership  qualities  by  pursuing  a 

[Block 5; Leadership skills - comments]  Demonstrated poor judgment and 
negative 
relationship 
w/subordinate.  Failed to notify appropriate authority when wrongdoing 
occurred, and when caught, sought to hide the truth.  Instead of pro-
viding  appropriate  guidance  to  subordinate  petty  officer  suffering 
marital difficulties, she exploited his troubles as a foundation to engage 
in an inappropriate relationship; resulted in the petty officer receiving 
non-judicial  punishment  (including  reduction  in  rate.)    Allowed  her 
close personal relationship with this subordinate to interfere with her 
division's chain of command by working directly with this junior mbr 
of division, effectively keeping her chief in the dark.  Failed to consider 

                                                 
6   The terms TC2 and PO-1 are used interchangeably in this decision and refer to the same individual.  
    

negative impact of her fraternization on the good order and discipline 
of  this  unit.    Contributed  to  atmosphere  of  distrust  and  deception by 
attempting  to  collaborate  with  the  subordinate  on  a  story  of  denial; 
truth only surfaced when the subordinate came forward.   
 
[Block  8;  Personal  and  Professional  Qualities  -  comments]    Disgraced 
service, unit, and self by placing desire for personal emotional/physical gratifi-
cation  above  compliance  w/Service  policy  and  customs,  and  welfare  of  the 
crew.  Deceived supervisor and reporting officer; stated she understood 
& was in compliance w/COMDT policy on interpersonal relationships; 
led dept head to believe relationship w/TC2 was strictly professional.  
Despite attending 8.H. training 5 days earlier, engaged in physical, sex-
ual  intimacy  w/TC2  -  admitted  she  knew  this  was  wrong.    Failed  to 
notify chain-of-command of feelings toward TC2 as required by Coast 
Guard policy.  Despite stern warning from CO concerning 8.H. issues, and 
advice from Department Head to "stay out of trouble" proceeded to rendezvous 
w/TC2  that  same  evening;  created  major  disruption  for  command;  low-
ered crew morale.  When nature of relationship discovered by command con-
tinued to & attempt deceit, until confronted w/truth by TC2 and command.  
Security  Clearance  suspended  due  to  evidence  of  unreliability,  immaturity, 
and possible moral turpitude.   
 
[The applicant's] eligibility and qualification to serve in the USCG are 
absolutely compromised by severe lack of judgment and irresponsible 
actions.  She has shown a serious inability to adhere to CG policy and 
service [requirements with respect to] inappropriate relations and frat-
ernization.  Do not promote.  Behavior warrants consideration of revo-
cation of commission.   

 
 
The applicant stated that the italicized comments are inaccurate.  She stated 
that at no time was a sexual and/or romantic relationship carried on for a period of 
three months with the PO-1.  She alleged that the statement that she pursued rela-
tionships with two enlisted crewmembers is unsubstantiated and unjust because she 
was taken to NJP for involvement with one person not two. 
 
 
With respect to her failure to qualify as inport or underway OOD, the appli-
cant stated that a hostile work environment created by the CO hampered her pro-
gression toward OOD qualification.  She stated that she had worked 18 hours a day 
and stood 1 in 3 duty rotations both inport and underway since her arrival on the 
cutter.   
 
 
The applicant stated that the comment "Demonstrated poor judgment . . . truth 
only surfaced when the subordinate came forward" is unjust.  She stated that she had 
a legal right not to make a statement and at no time did she interfere with the chain 

of command.  She also stated that good order and discipline on the ship were already 
a mess.   
 
 
With respect to the statement "Disgraced service, unit, self by placing desire 
for  personal  emotional/physical  gratification  above  compliance  w/Service  policy 
and customs," the applicant stated that her relationship was strictly professional until 
December 23, 1998.  In addition, she stated that the CO's comment violated Article 
10.A.4.f. of the Personnel Manual by mentioning alleged "emotional" and "physical" 
gratification.   
 
 
With  respect  to  the  remaining  disputed  comments  in  the  special  OER,  the 
applicant  stated  that  the  warning  for  her  to  stay  out  of  trouble  was  not  related  to 
fraternization.  She stated that she was never confronted by the PO-1.  She also stated 
that her security clearance was never suspended but rather adjudicated.   
 
Annual/Semi-Annual OER 
 
 
The annual/semi annual (disputed) OER covers the period October 1, 1998 to 
March 31, 1999 and is derogatory because the applicant was marked unsatisfactory (a 
1)  when  compared  with  others  of  the  same  grade  whom  the  reporting  officer  has 
know in his career.  She received marks of 2 in teamwork and responsibility, marks 
of  3  in  planning  and  preparedness,  result/effectiveness,  adaptability,  professional 
competence,  looking  out  for  others,  developing  others, directing others, workplace 
climate,  initiative,  and  professional  presence.    She  challenged  the  following  com-
ments  and  provided  an  explanation  as  to  why  she  believes  the  comments  are 
inaccurate. 
 
Comment:  "Required significant counseling, guidance & prompting to progress pro-
fessionally. Was unprepared for opportunity to anchor ship during patrol - reluctant 
to proceed."  The applicant admitted that this was her first anchoring evolution and 
she was nervous.  She stated that the OER fails to mention that she was "the conning 
officer for a swept channel, Loss of Gyro, into a precision anchoring, into a Dredged 
Anchor evolution, to mooring the ship into Gitmo," scoring higher than anyone else 
the previous year.   
 
Comment:  "Required frequent prompting to make routine daily reports to supervi-
sor on time."  She stated that like every other junior officer on board, she missed a 
couple of evening reports.  She questioned the placement of this comment in her OER 
and doubted that such a comment was placed in the OERs of other junior officers.   
 
Comment:    "Failed  to  conduct  required  trng/record  keeping  for  visual  comms; 
required  signif[icant]  effort/guidance  to  clear  training-restrictive  descrep[ancies]."  
The applicant stated that although she was identified as visual comms coordinator, 
she received no official training to be a visual comms coordinator.  She stated this 

was not a performance issue but a lack of training issue.  She stated that the problems 
mentioned in this comment occurred after she had been relieved of the job. 
 
Comment:  "Failure to modify behavior to comply w/Comdt 8-H policy & ignored 
guidance & orders; taken to mast for violation of Art. 92, UCMJ (fraternization)."  She 
stated that she was taken to captain's mast for violation of Article 134 not Article 92.  
She stated that from the mast proceeding she understood that the Article 92 violation 
was incorporated into the Article 134 and would not be addressed separately. 
 
Comment:  "Given extra ship handling opportunities in an effort to speed quals and 
learning."  The applicant admitted that she had several opportunities on watch, but 
because she was a graduate of officer candidate school and not an Academy graduate 
she  was  not  give  as  many  opportunities  as  the  academy  graduates  to  gain  OOD 
qualification. 
 
Comment:  "Failure to qualify as a result of slow progress on PQS and lack of confi-
dence in abilities of command."  The applicant stated that she was making progress 
and  was  not  taking  any  longer  than  other  junior  officers.    She  stated  that  she  had 
been  recommended  for  the  inport  board  on  two  occasions  but  was  not  given  one 
because of the hostile environment and because the CO was punishing her for having 
left  a  Cosmopolitan  magazine,  which  he  considered  to  be  pornography,  in  the 
wardroom.    She  said  the  CO  constantly  referred  to  her  reading  material  as 
pornography.  
 
Comment:    "Slow  to  progress  w/professional  quals  .  .  .  "  The  applicant  stated  the 
only  thing  holding  up  her  qualifications  was  the  failure  of  the  CO  to  schedule  a 
qualifications board.  She stated that it takes OCS graduates longer than Academy 
graduates  to  qualify  as  OOD.    In  addition,  she  blamed  the  CO  for  the  hostile 
environment that existed on the cutter.   
 
Comment:    "Overstepped  bounds  and  took  misguided  initiative  by  attempting  to 
provide marital counseling to subordinate without including [the chief and subordi-
nate] in the process."   The applicant denied that she provided or attempted to pro-
vide marital counseling to this individual at any time.   
 
Comment:  "Failed to use chain-of-command on numerous occasions; often failed to 
keep supervisor informed, or seek input before going up the chain on issues."  The 
applicant denied she failed to use the chain of command.  She stated that she did as 
directed by the XO and/or the CO. 
 
Comment:    "Inappropriate  relationship  poisoned  atmosphere    .  .  ."  The  applicant 
stated that this comment is inappropriate and has no corroboration.   
 

Comment:  "Failed to seek counseling concerning OER . . ." The applicant stated that 
she  did  not  have  the  opportunity  to  seek  counseling  and  her  supervisor  provided 
none.   
 
Comment:    "Despite  several  warnings  [from]  supervisors,  took  on  inapprop[riate] 
role  in  attempting  to  counsel  petty  officer  from  other  dept  who  was  undergoing 
marital difficulties."  The applicant denied that she attempted to counsel this petty 
officer and that she received no counseling on the matter from her command.   
 
Comment:  "Repeatedly lied to & deceived seniors concerning compliance with 8-H 
policy."    The  applicant  stated  that  she  should  not  suffer  adverse  consequences 
because she invoked her right against self incrimination. 
 
Comment:  "When caught chewing gum/eating at inappropriate times & places, she 
attempted to justify behavior, or argue for change in policy rather than comply."  The 
applicant stated that she was not aware that eating while on watch was prohibited.  
Neither was she aware that there was a rule against chewing gum. 
 
Comment:    "Exercised  poor  grooming  &  personal  hygiene  practices;  Sent  off  of 
bridge to fix hair properly."  She stated that her hair was within regulation although 
it was not to the CO's liking.  She further stated that a problem with her hair does not 
equate to poor hygiene.   
 
Comment:  "Poor initiatives and progress toward qualification in primary duties of 
Officer  of  the  Deck."    The  applicant  stated  that  her  efforts  in  this  regard  were 
thwarted by the command. 
 
 
The applicant stated that the rating chains for the disputed OERs violated the 
Personnel  Manual  by  emphasizing  the  applicant's  gender  7  in  referring  to  the 
opposite sex of the PO-1.  She further stated that the OER's reference to a third party 
and  gender  violated  the  prohibition  against  pacing  emphasis  on  a  third  party  by 
name, gender, religion, color, race, or ethnic background. 8  
 
 
The applicant claimed that comments were attached to the special OER after 
she had reviewed and declined to comment on it.  She stated the annual/semi-annual 
OER was submitted to a selection board without adequate time for her to review it.  
She stated that she did not receive a copy of the OER for approximately 30 days after 

                                                 
7      Article  10.A.4.f.7.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  members  of  the  rating  chain  shall  not 
"Expressly evaluate, compare, or emphasize gender, religion, color, race or ethnic background." 
 
8  Article  10.A.4.f.7.8.  states  that  the  members  of  the  rating  chain  shall not "[p]lace emphasis upon a 
third  party  by  name,  gender,  religion,  color,  race,  or  ethnic  background  (e.g.,  Catholic  lay  minister, 
wrote award recommendation for African-American civilian, praised by RADM Smith, was a female 
role model)." 
 

it had been submitted.  She claimed that her supervisor for the annual OER would 
not include any of her TAD accomplishments in the OER.   
 
Statements Submitted by the Applicant 

 
1.    A  male  officer  stationed  on  the  cutter  with  the  applicant  wrote  the 

following: 

 
During my assignment to the cutter I had a relationship with a female 
Petty  Officer  outside  of  my  division  that  was  also  assigned  to  [the 
cutter].  The relationship was against the rules outlined in the Uniform 
Code  of  Military  Justice  (UCMJ).    I  notified  the  [CO]  of  my  unau-
thorized relationship and I was taken to Captain's Mast for Non-Judi-
cial Punishment.  I was charged with Fraternization and as a result of 
the  mast  I  received  a  punitive  letter  of  reprimand,  poor  performance 
evaluations,  and  restrictions  for  a  30-day  period  while  at  homeport.  
The Petty Officer was removed from the ship for an unrelated incident 
and eventually discharged from the Coast Guard.   

 
Following NJP I lost the trust of all officers and subordinates and 
struggled  to  gain  trust  back  before  my  departure.    Previously  sched-
uled  to  take  Officer  of  the  Deck  qualifications  board  I  was  no  longer 
allowed to.  The punitive letter of reprimand has followed me through 
to  my  new  assignment  preventing  me  from  applying  for  special 
assignments  in  the  local  area  and  places  my  chances  of  promotion  in 
jeopardy.   
 

 

2.  A female officer wrote that she filed a discrimination complaint against the 
CO because his discriminatory actions against females created a hostile work envi-
ronment.   She claimed that the CO was verbally abusive and treated her with less 
respect, dignity, and fairness than her male counterparts.  She stated that the appli-
cant "was subjected to and bore the brunt of similar behavior from the [CO] until her 
departure from the ship." 

 
3.  The PO-2 wrote that the CO accused him of having a sexual relationship 
with the applicant, which he denied.  He stated he told the CO that he thought of the 
applicant  as  a  sister.  He  stated  that  the  CO  told  him  that  the  applicant  had  been 
investigated and that she had been married twice and had a child.  "[The CO] then 
informed me that [the applicant] was a "sexual predator" and that by associating with 
such a person, I created a "perception" that there was a sexual relationship. "  The PO-
2  stated  that  his  association  with  the  applicant  in  no  way  affected  his  relationship 
with his spouse or family.  

 

 
4.  The applicant submitted several letters attesting to the excellent quality of 
her work while assigned TAD to another command and attesting to her good charac-
ter. 
 
Applicant's Subsequent Submissions 
 
 
On  XXXXXXX,  the  applicant  submitted  a  supplemental  statement  repeating 
her  earlier  allegations.    She  also  submitted  four  additional  statements  from  other 
individuals.  They are discussed below: 
 

1.    The  cutter's  female  combat  information  center  officer  (CICO)  wrote  a 
statement in which she claimed that the CO equated female officers with little girls 
and thought that females should not participate in combat.  She stated that CO com-
mented  to  her  in  conversation  that  "he  would  be  proud  to  have  his  sons  fight  for 
their  country,  but  his  "little  girls"  were  sweet  and  innocent  and  should  not  be 
exposed to that type of violence."  She complained that during combat drills she had 
to wear special gear that was too large because it was the same gear that had been 
worn  by  the  pervious  male  CICO.    She  stated  that  she  felt  degraded  by  the  CO's 
comment  that  she  looked  like  a  little  girl  in  the  shirt.    She  said  the  junior  female 
officers  were  forced  to  apologize  for  leaving  a  Cosmopolitan  magazine  in  the 
wardroom, even though some male officers had read it.  She said the CO described 
this magazine as pornography.   

This individual stated that her OERs were lower under the CO, but she cannot 

 
This individual stated that the CO frequently criticized and teased the appli-
cant  for  bringing  various  condiments  to  the  wardroom  table,  which  bothered  the 
applicant.  This individual stated that the applicant told her on several occasions that 
she was waiting for an OOD qualification board.  She also stated that the applicant 
was progressing on her underway qualification, but she did not know how far along 
the applicant was in that process.  She acknowledged that eating on the bridge had 
been  permitted  at  one  time,  but  the  rule  was  changed  to  prohibit  eating  on  the 
bridge.    
 
 
attribute the lower OERs to her gender.   
 
 
2.    A  lieutenant  commander,  who  was  head  of  the  Coast  Guard's  work-life 
program at the time, wrote that the applicant came to him in the fall of  XXXX about 
problems with her CO.  He stated that the applicant told him that she was being sin-
gled out for leaving a Cosmopolitan magazine in the wardroom, because she was a 
female,  and  because  she  did  not  adopt  the  CO's  religious  beliefs.    The  lieutenant 
commander said that the applicant told him that the CO tied his evaluation of her 
OOD skills to his perception of her values.  This individual stated that the applicant 
was  not  the  only  female  member  of  the  ship  to  complain  to  him  about  the  atmos-
phere on board the cutter.   
 

 
3.  The XXXXXXX for the XXXXXXXXXX who had responsibility for the Coast 
Guard exchange store stated that the exchange sold Cosmopolitan magazines and it 
was not considered a pornographic magazine.   He stated that the exchange does not 
sell adult or pornographic material.   
 
 
4.  A petty officer second class wrote that in late XXX the CO announced that 
drinking  sodas  or  having  candy  on  the  bridge  were  prohibited.    He  stated  that  in 
XXXX he witnessed "the new female operations officer " crying after a meeting with 
the CO.   
 
Views of the Coast Guard  
 
 
On September 27, 2002, the Board received an advisory opinion from the Chief 
Counsel of the Coast Guard recommending that the Board grant partial relief to the 
applicant, as discussed below. 
 
 
With  respect  to  the  special  OER  the  Chief  Counsel  recommended  that  the 
comment "Lack of credibility exacerbated by failure to qualify as inport or underway 
OOD,"  be  removed  from  the  OER.    The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  this  comment 
should not have been included in the special OER because it was not related to the 
conduct that precipitated the special OER. The special OER was written as a result of 
the applicant having been awarded NJP for a violation of the UCMJ, Article 134 (frat-
ernization).   
 
 
The Chief Counsel also recommended the removal of the reviewer comments 
in  their  entirety  from  the  special  OER.    He  stated  that  these  comments  should  be 
removed because they were added after the applicant had reviewed and declined to 
comment  on  the  derogatory  OER.    The  Chief  Counsel  stated  before  the  OER  was 
placed in her record, the applicant should have been given another 14 days to reply 
to it after the reviewer comments were added.   
 
With respect to the semiannual OER, the Chief Counsel recommended that the 
 
reviewer  comments  be  removed  from  the  OER  because  they  were  placed  in  her 
record before she was given an opportunity to comment on them.  He also recom-
mended that the comment, "taken to mast for violation of Art. 92, UCMJ (fraterniza-
tion)" be changed to indicate that Article 134, rather than Article 92 was the punitive 
article for which the applicant received punishment.   
 
The Chief Counsel stated that although he has recommended some corrections 
 
to the OERs in question, they should be corrected and not removed from the appli-
cant's record.  He stated that the Board has previously ruled that "an OER will not be 
ordered expunged unless the Board finds that the entire report is infected with the 
error or injustices alleged; unless the Board finds that every significant comment in 
the report is incorrect or unjust; or unless the Board finds it impossible or impracti-
cable  to  sever  the  incorrect/unjust  material  from  the  appropriate  material."    The 

Chief Counsel stated that the OERs, notwithstanding the corrections noted above, are 
in  substantial  compliance  with  the  Personnel  Manual. 
  He  stated  that  the 
recommended corrections could be made without removing the entire OERs. 
 
The Chief Counsel stated that the Coast Guard takes allegations of retaliation 
 
and  bias  very  seriously  and  it  has  a  full  set  of  administrative  processes  through 
which  claims  of  discrimination  can  be  made.    He  stated  that  the  applicant  did not 
avail herself of these avenues.  The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant has failed 
to prove that she suffered from a hostile environment on board the cutter.  In this 
regard, he stated that while there is some evidence that some personnel may have 
experienced some harassment, the applicant has not provided any evidence that she 
herself was subjected to a pattern of sexual discrimination or harassment.   
 
 
The Coast Guard submitted a 44-page advisory opinion, incorporated herein 
by reference, addressing in detail each of the applicant's allegations with respect to 
the alleged erroneous comments in the OERs.  With respect to each, with the excep-
tion of those mentioned above, the Chief Counsel stated that the applicant had failed 
to rebut the presumption of regularity or to prove that the comment was inaccurate.  
The Chief Counsel noted that each member of the rating chain stood by his evalua-
tion of the applicant's performance.   
 

The Chief Counsel asserted that none of the rating chain members were dis-
qualified from carrying out their OER responsibilities.  He stated that the regulations 
governing the officer evaluation system provide that where a supervisor, reporting 
officer, or reviewer is disqualified from carrying out his or her rating chain responsi-
bilities, the CO or the next senior in the chain of command is required to designate an 
appropriate  substitute  who  is  capable  of  evaluating  a  reported-on  officer.    Article 
10.A.2.g.1 of the Personnel Manual.  A disqualified person includes one relieved for 
cause due to misconduct or unsatisfactory performance, "being an interested party to 
an  investigation  or  court  of  inquiry,"  or  "any  other  situation  in  which  a  personal 
interest  or  conflict  …  raises  a  substantial  question  as  to  whether  the  Reported-on 
Officer will receive a fair, accurate evaluation."  See Article 10.A.2.g.2. of the Coast 
Guard Personnel Manual.  The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant's conclusion 
that  her  rating  chain  was  disqualified  because  they  were  interested  parties  to  the 
investigation is incorrect.  He stated that to be a party to an investigation means that 
the individual is the subject of the investigation or that they share culpability or risk 
of punishment as a result of the activities.  He stated that the applicant has not pro-
vided any evidence that the rating chain members were parties to the investigation.  
According to the Chief Counsel, the fact that the rating chain members were called 
upon by their duties to conduct the investigation or provide statements to the inves-
tigating officer does not make them parties to the investigation.  "Members of a unit's 
command  cadre  are  routinely  called  upon  to  investigate  an  individual's  actions, 
"adjudicate" the case by [NJP] or administrative action, and then evaluate the indi-
vidual.  Doing so in no way makes them a party to the investigation." 

 

The Coast Guard obtained statements from the supervisor, reporting officer, 

and the reviewer for the disputed OERs.   

 
1.  The supervisor for the disputed OERs was also the operations officer.  He 
declared under penalty of perjury that he stood by his evaluation of the applicant's 
performance, which was based on his direct observation.  With respect to her per-
formance he stated as follows: 

 
As her department head and the Senior Watch Officer, I monitored [the 
applicant's]  progress  toward  professional  qualifications  closely.      She 
failed  to  show  initiative  in  pursuing  the  activities  necessary to obtain 
these  qualifications.    When  presented  with  opportunities  to  complete 
required  training  evolutions  she  was  either  unprepared,  or  unmoti-
vated  to  take  advantage  of  them    [The  applicant]  received  extensive 
counseling, advice and assistance in her efforts to qualify from all levels 
of  the  command  and  her  peers.    Her  failure  to  make  acceptable  pro-
gress in qualifying at her primary duties as Deck Watch Officer, led the 
command to delay, and eventually cancel, her orders to Boarding Offi-
cer School.   
 
[The applicant] may not recall having her security clearance suspended 
because it occurred in the wake of her being caught in an inappropriate 
relationship  and  going  to  Captain's  Mast.    She  left  the  ship  shortly 
thereafter.  As Command Security Officer, I made the recommendation 
to the CO, who concurred.   

 
 
The supervisor stated that the applicant was provided the same opportunities 
as every other junior officer that he supervised during that period and she was held 
to the same standards.  Each of the five junior officers he supervised was evaluated 
based solely on their performance.  He stated that he was not forced to alter marks or 
insert comments on any officer's record.   
 
 
The  supervisor  stated  that  in  XXXX,  XXXX  Area  conducted  a  command  cli-
mate assessment on the cutter in response to allegations that there may have been a 
bias  against  female  officers  or  crewmembers.    According  to  the  supervisor,  this 
assessment concluded that there was no evidence of bias and that the command had 
an excellent climate that did not tolerate sexual discrimination or harassment.   
 
2.  The executive officer (XO), who was the applicant's reporting officer, stated 
 
under penalty of perjury that there was sufficient evidence in the command prelimi-
nary investigation to satisfy him that the applicant had a sexual/romantic relation-
ship with the PO-1.  He stood by his statements that the applicant had a relationship 
with  two  married  enlisted  members,  one  of  whom  was  the  individual  she  was 
romantically involved with.  The other was an enlisted petty officer that had some 
marital difficulty.  He stated that she was observed carrying on frequent one-on-one 

conversations with PO-2.  When questioned about these conversations, the applicant 
stated she was providing marriage counseling.  The XO stated that such counseling 
was done completely outside the chain of command and no one in PO-2's chain of 
command  was  aware  that  the  applicant  was  providing  counseling  to  this  enlisted 
member.   
 
 
The  XO  agreed  with  the  supervisor's  assessment  of  the  applicant's  perform-
ance with respect to her progress toward obtaining inport and underway OOD quali-
fications.  He agreed that the semiannual OER should state she was punished at NJP 
for violation of Article 134 and not Article 92.   
 
 
In  a  supplemental  statement,  the  XO  stated  that  the  PO-1  involved  in  the 
situation for which the applicant received NJP admitted to the XO in the presence of 
his NJP representative that he was involved in prohibited relationship with the appli-
cant.  The XO stated that the applicant had denied that she was involved in a prohib-
ited relationship with this individual until she realized that the PO-1 involved had 
admitted to the relationship.   
 
3.  The CO, who was the reviewer for the disputed OER, wrote the following under 
penalty of perjury: 
 

I continue to stand by the facts stated in [the applicant's] OERs and in 
the  punitive  letter  of  reprimand  of  21  January  1999.    [The  applicant] 
was  taken  to  mast  for  violations  of  Article  92  and  134,  and  found  to 
have committed both for which she received punishment . . . The Nar-
rative  in  the  OERs  and  [punitive  letter  of  reprimand]  are  consistent 
with the disciplinary action taken. 

 
Applicant's Response to the Views of the Coast Guard 
 
 
On November 18, 2002, the Board received the applicant response to the views 
of the Coast Guard, disagreeing with them except for the recommendations for some 
corrections  to  the  disputed  OERs.   The applicant continued to alleged that the CO 
maintained a hostile environment aboard the cutter that interfered with her ability to 
perform.  She alleged that she was also subjected to retaliatory conduct from supervi-
sors, which began in October soon after the Cosmopolitan incident, due to her com-
plaints about the command environment to her supervisor, to the officer-in-charge of 
the work-life office, and to a chaplain.   
 
 
The  applicant  claimed  that  her  OOD  PQS  (professional  qualifications  stan-
dards) had been completed, but she was not scheduled for a qualification board.  She 
stated that by not being given a board, she was required to work longer hours than 
anyone else while inport.  She claimed that the ship's instruction for qualifications set 
a maximum 12-month period to become qualified.  She stated that she completed her 
inport  qualifications  in  4  months  and  had  almost  completed  her  underway  OOD 

qualifications by the end of the 7th month.  The applicant asserted that " [t]he hostile 
environment did not allow progression of her boards, despite the fact that [she] had 
completed  [her]  inport  OOD  qualification requirements and had almost completed 
her [underway qualifications]."   
 
 
The applicant stated that her abilities and qualifications were clearly demon-
strated  at  her  TAD  command.    She  submitted  her  concurrent  OER  for  the  period 
January 1, XXXX to Mach 31, XXXX, which contained no marks lower than 4 and con-
tained very favorable comments.  The applicant also stated that she has been a val-
ued civilian employee of the Coast Guard since XXXX and that she would be an asset 
to the Reserve.   
 
 
The applicant stated that although the supervisor stated that he witnessed no 
command bias, she as well as other junior officers reported such bias.  She further 
claimed  that  the  rating  chain  exaggerated  the  situation  between  PO-1  and  herself.  
She described the situation as a kiss between the petty officer and herself.   
 

The  applicant  submitted  several  statements  in  support  of  her  application, 

which are discussed below.   
 
 
1.  An individual under whom the applicant occasionally trained for break-in 
inport OOD duties wrote that to the best of his knowledge the applicant's progres-
sion toward OOD inport qualification was normal.   
 
 
2.  A chief petty officer who was the senior food service specialist and assistant 
master-at  arms  wrote  that  he  was  in  charge  of  all  the  messes  and  staterooms.    He 
stated that a part of his job was checking personal hygiene daily with the mess cooks 
and other food service specialist.  "Not one time can I recall, when [the applicant's] 
personal  hygiene  was  ever in question and her stateroom was always immaculate.  
He stated that the applicant was groomed and her uniform was always immaculate.   
 
3.  The  PO-2  who  allegedly  received  marital  counseling  from  the  applicant 
 
denied that he had a sexual relationship with the applicant.  He stated that at no time 
did the applicant provide him with marital counseling.  He stated that a conversation 
he had with the applicant about a sick child might have been interpreted erroneously 
by the command as marital counseling.   
 
 
wrote that  
 

4.  A retired captain with many years of experience in Coast Guard operations 

Academy  Graduates  are  afforded  more  training  in  their  curriculum, 
and arrive onboard a ship "light years" ahead of their non-prior Coast 
Guard OCS Graduate counterparts.  It is not uncommon for an Acad-
emy Graduate to arrive to a ship with his or her PQS already completed 

and  subsequently  complete  OOD  qualifications  much  more  expedi-
tiously.  This is a disadvantage, and is symptomatic of the system. 

"XXXX late w/muster rpt." 

The applicant also submitted the following notes of the supervisor's counsel-

"XXXXX Held brief performance rvw.  Provided guidance on what she needed 

 
 
ing sessions with her, although she stated she did not agree with some of them. 
 
 
to do to get i/p OOD board."  
 
 
 
 
"XXXX  .  .  .  Discussed  her  relationship  [w/PO-1]  --  cautioned  her  to  keep  it 
purely professional. . . . [The applicant] stated that she found some of the things [the 
CO]  said  offensive.    I  suggested  [the  applicant]  speak  w/the  CO  about  it before it 
created a barrier to her gaining the CO's trust.  Specifically, the CO's language which 
addressed her like a child was brought up.  Comment's like do I need to change your 
diaper? was mentioned.  I told her that to get treated as a professional she needed to 
act like one.  Discussed specific examples:  messy rack, messy hair, food on bridge, 
where her behavior was more like a child than a professional." 
 
 
"XXXX 18:13  Met w/CO and [the applicant] to discuss her performance.  CO 
provided feedback on:  Inport/underway qual expectation. See supervisor for OER 
review. Eating on bridge - reaction to getting caught. Relations w/enlisted men. . .  
Be ready for anything, i.e., anchoring. Develop discipline to get qualified and get the 
job done.  Work through TCC in dealing w/comms division." 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 
 
The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the 
applicant's record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission, the OIG investi-
gation and report, and applicable law: 
 
 
United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 

1. The Board has jurisdiction of this case pursuant to section 1552 of title 10, 

2. The applicant requested an oral hearing.  The Chair, under section 52.31 of 
title  33,  Code  of  Federal  Regulations,  recommended  disposition  on  the  merits 
without a hearing.  The Board concurred in that recommendation. 

 
3.  The applicant has presented insufficient evidence to establish that the CO 
created  and/or  fostered  a  hostile  work  environment  on  the  cutter.  The  applicant 
failed to submit corroboration for her allegations that during her closed door coun-
seling sessions with the CO, he interrogated her about her religious beliefs, the litera-
ture she read and certain aspects of her personal life, her lack of knowledge and her 
diet. There is some corroboration in the counseling notes of the supervisor that the 

applicant complained that the CO made a comment to her like "Do I need to change 
your  diaper."    However,  there  is  no  clear  evidence  in  the  record  how  often  such 
statements were made and/or whether they were made in front of other individuals.   

 
4.  Although two other female officers submitted statements on behalf of the 
applicant, neither provided detailed specific examples of what the CO did to create a 
hostile environment or how he treated the male officers differently than the female 
officers.  The statement that the CO created a hostile environment by expressing the 
opinion to a female officer in a conversation that females should not be assigned to 
combat  is not corroborated and there is no evidence that female officers were pre-
vented from obtaining the necessary training that would allow them to be assigned 
to combat should the need arise.  In addition, the statement that the CO thought of 
female  officers  as  little  girls  because  he  commented  to  this  female  officer  that  she 
looked like a little girl when she wore work gear sized for a male is not persuasive 
evidence  that  the  CO  created  or  harbored  a  hostile  work  environment.  Moreover, 
these alleged comments were not made to the applicant or in her presence and there-
fore their relevance to her claim is minimal.  Another female officer wrote that she 
had filed a discrimination complaint against the CO for creating a hostile work envi-
ronment.  However, the supervisor wrote in his affidavit that as a result of discrimi-
nation complaints a climate assessment of the cutter was done by the Atlantic Area 
command in 1999.   According to the supervisor, the assessment revealed that there 
was no evidence of bias, sexual discrimination, or harassment.  The applicant offered 
nothing to show that the supervisor's statement in this regard was incorrect or false. 

 
5.  The applicant's claim that the CO refused to schedule an inport qualifica-
tion board for her because he blamed her for leaving a magazine that he considered 
to be pornography in the wardroom is not supported by the evidence in the record.  
There is no evidence that the CO ever stated to her or anyone else that the applicant 
would  not  receive  an  inport  qualification  board  because  she  read  this  particular 
magazine or left it the wardroom.  The CO certainly has the right to determine what 
is  appropriate  for  the  wardroom.    Although  several  individuals  offered  their 
opinions  that  the  applicant  had  progressed  to  the  point  of  being  ready  for  a 
qualification board, they never stated that she was not scheduled for a board because 
of the magazine incident.   

 
6.  The applicant's claim that she was forced into the prohibited relationship 
with the enlisted male due to her feelings of isolation and desperation created by the 
alleged  hostile  and  discriminatory  treatment  is  not  persuasive.    Even  if  the 
allegations of abusive treatment by the CO were true, there were other avenues the 
applicant could have taken without entering into the prohibited relationship with an 
enlisted male of her division.  There were female officers on the cutter that she could 
have and did consult with, as well as the officer-in-charge of the work-life office, and 
a chaplain.   She has failed to explain how having the inappropriate relationship with 
the enlisted member of her division helped her cope with or resolve the alleged hos-

tile  work  environment.    The  applicant  exercised  poor  judgment  by  becoming 
involved in this prohibited relationship. 

 
7.  The applicant's claim that she and other females on the cutter were treated 
differently than the male junior officers fails for lack of proof.  The supervisor rebut-
ted her claim that her assignment to boarding school was taken away and given to a 
male  because  of  the  CO's  alleged  discrimination  against  females.    The  supervisor 
wrote in his statement "[the applicant's] failure to make acceptable progress in quali-
fying at her primary duties as Deck Watch Officer, led the command to delay, and 
eventually cancel, [the applicant's orders] to Boarding Officer School." 

 
8.  The applicant's claim that a male officer who was also involved in a pro-
hibited  relationship  was  treated  differently  than  she  was  by  the  CO  is  groundless.  
This  officer  wrote  in  a  statement  submitted  by  the  applicant  that  he  confessed  his 
involvement with the enlisted member to the CO for which he was punished at NJP. 
He received a letter or reprimand, restriction to the ship for 30 days, and poor per-
formance  evaluations.    He  further stated that he was denied an OOD qualification 
board.  The CO treated the male officer and the applicant the same for their miscon-
duct.  It wasn't necessary for the CO to remove the male officer from the ship because 
the enlisted member with whom he had the inappropriate relationship was removed 
from  the  ship  and  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  for  unrelated  reasons.    This 
officer spoke about the CO's and the other officers' loss of trust in him, the negative 
impact the letter of reprimand has had on his career, and his expectation that it will 
hamper his promotion opportunity.   

 
9.  Considering all of the circumstances in this case, the Board is not persuaded 
that the applicant has presented sufficient evidence to establish that the CO created a 
hostile work environment aboard the cutter or that he discriminated against females 
in favor of males.  The evidence does not satisfy the Board that the applicant suffered 
discrimination because of her gender.  Nor is the Board satisfied that the evidence 
establishes that the CO's alleged utterance(s) about changing her diapers was of such 
severity that it created a physical or emotional threat or that it occurred with such 
regularity  for  the  Board  to  conclude  that  this  comment  alone  amounted  to  the 
creation of a hostile work environment, although it could have been offensive.   
 
 
 
10.  The LOR of reprimand will not be removed from the applicant's record.  It 
is there legitimately.  Article 10.A.4.c.3. (2) states "copies of punitive letters of censure 
. . . shall be referred to and appended to the OER once the proceedings, including 
reviews  and  appeal,  are  completed."    The  applicant  did  not  appeal  the  NJP  and 
declined  to  comment  on  the  special  OER  to  which  the  letter  of  reprimand  was 
attached.  Now she complains about minor discrepancies in the letter of reprimand, 
which could have been cured by the NJP appeal authority or by the rating chain, if 
she had appealed the NJP or filed a reply to the special OER.  
 

 
11.  The applicant claims that the sentence in the LOR "You are hereby repri-
manded  for  your  conduct  during  [the  cutter's]  inport  from  16  XXXX  through  11 
December  XXXX,  and  subsequent  deployment  and  mid-patrol  breaks  from  12 
December  XXXX  through  XX  October  XXXX"  --  contains  several  errors.    First,  the 
Board agrees that the October XX, XXXX date is obviously incorrect and should read 
January  XX,  XXXX.    Second,  although  the  applicant  denied  that  she  fraternized 
between  October  XX,  XXXX  and  December  XX,  XXXX  or  between  December  XX, 
XXXX  and  December  XX,  XXXX,  evidence  of  her  involvement  with  PO-1  during 
these periods was included in the preliminary NJP investigation, which is a part of 
unit punishment book.  Moreover, the applicant admitted to having an inappropriate 
relationship with the PO-1, then a member of her division on December XX, XXXX 
and January XX, XXXX.  The Board finds based on the evidence of record that it is 
unlikely  that  these  were  isolated  occurrences.    Even  if  the  dates  in  the  challenged 
sentence were erroneous, the most that this Board would do is modify the LOR not 
remove it. The NJP and LOR should be a part of her record.  Accordingly, the Board 
finds that there is no need under the circumstances to correct the letter of reprimand.   
 
 
12.  Turning to the OERs, the rating chain members were not interested parties 
to the preliminary investigation and therefore they were not disqualified from per-
forming  their  OER  responsibilities.    Article  10-A-2(g)(1)  of  the  Personnel  Manual 
defines disqualified as “being an interested party to an investigation . . . or any other 
situation  in  which  a  personal  interest  or  conflict  on  the  part  of  the  [s]upervisor, 
[r]eporting  [o]fficer,  or  [r]eviewer  raises  a  substantial  question  whether  the 
[r]eported-on [o]fficer will receive a fair and accurate evaluation.”  Article 1.F.2.G. of 
the Administrative Investigations Manual places responsibility on the CO of a unit 
for initiating an investigation into an incident arising within his command.  The con-
vening of such investigations does not make the CO an interested party to an inves-
tigation.    To raise a question as to disqualification the applicant needed to present 
some  evidence  that  the  CO's  decision  in  convening  the investigation was of a per-
sonal rather that an official nature.  The applicant has not shown that the CO had a 
personal interest in the outcome of the investigation.  This CO was not accused of 
any wrongdoing at the time of the investigation and to the Board’s knowledge he has 
not been so accused to this date.   
 
 
13.  The XO, who was also the reporting officer for the disputed OERs, was the 
preliminary investigating officer for the applicant's NJP.  Again, because he partici-
pated in the investigation does not render him an interested party to the investiga-
tion. The subject of the investigation was not the applicant's performance but rather 
her  involvement  in  a  prohibited  relationship.  While  the  applicant  may  have 
preferred that someone other than a member of her rating chain had conducted the 
investigation,  the  XO's  involvement  does  not  violate  the  Personnel  Manual  or  the 
Administrative Investigations Manual. 
 

 
14.  The applicant's supervisor did not conduct the investigation but was listed 
as a witness for the NJP.  The Board is not aware of any regulation that states being 
listed as a potential witness makes one an interested party to an investigation.   
 
15.    The  special  OER  was  prepared  pursuant  to  Article  10.A.3.c.1.b.  of  the 
 
Personnel Manual.  A special OER is required when an officer receives non-judicial 
punishment, which is not subject to appeal.  This Article also states "The reporting 
period  for  this  special  report  will  be  the  time  frame  during  which  the  officer's 
conduct prompting the report occurred."  The special OER shall state the nature of 
the proceedings, the punishment imposed, and any other information as necessary to 
accurately reflect the performance being evaluated.  The Coast Guard recommended 
and the Board finds that the reviewer comments attached to the special OER should 
be removed from the OER because the applicant was not given an additional 14 days 
to file a reply after the reviewer comments were added to the OER, as required by 
the Personnel Manual.   
 
 
16.    With  respect to the comments in the special OER, the Coast Guard rec-
ommended and the Board finds that the comment -- "Lack of credibility exacerbated 
by failure to qualify as inport or underway OOD" -- should be removed from the spe-
cial OER because it does not belong there.  The Personnel Manual states that the spe-
cial  evaluation  "shall  be  limited  to  those  areas  affected  by  such  conduct,  since  all 
other dimensions will be evaluated in the regular OER.   
 

17.  The Board finds no basis to remove any of the other challenged comments 
from  the  special  OER.    Although  the  applicant  denied  that  she  had  a  sexual  or 
romantic  relationship  with  the  PO-1  over  a  three-month  period,  she  admitted  that 
she "displayed inappropriate conduct by being with him on or about XX December 
XXXX and XX January XXXX."  She did not describe this inappropriate conduct, but 
the CO was convinced based on the preliminary NJP investigation, which included 
the  investigating  officer's  interview  with  the  PO-1  in  the  presence  of  his  NJP 
representative, that he had a romantic/sexual relationship with the applicant over a 
period of three months.  The applicant has the burden of proof in this case and her 
denial alone is insufficient to establish that the rating chain's comment is inaccurate.   
 
 
18.    The  applicant  denied  that  she  had  pursued  inappropriate  relationships 
with two enlisted married members of her unit, the PO-1 and PO-2.  She stated that 
she was taken to mast for having an inappropriate relationship with the PO-1.  As 
discussed in Finding 15, the special OER not only reports the NJP but also covers the 
period "during which the officer's conduct prompting the report occurred."  There-
fore  it  was  appropriate  for  the  CO  to  comment  on  other  related  conduct  that 
occurred  during  this  period.    Both  the  applicant  and  PO-2  denied  there  was  a 
romantic  relationship  between  them.    However,  the  comment  characterizes  their 
relationship as inappropriate.  There is evidence establishing that there was an overly 
familiar relationship between them, in violation of Article 8.H.2.c. of the Personnel 

Manual.9   A chief petty officer stated that the applicant had been counseled about 
the amount of time she had been spending with this PO-2 and how it appeared to the 
command.  The applicant should have ceased her interaction with this petty officer 
after receiving counseling about it.  
 
 
19.    The  applicant  complained  that  the  paragraph  containing  the  comment 
"truth only surfaced when the subordinate came forward" blames her for exercising 
her right to remain silent.  However, a reading of the paragraph reports only what 
happened  during  this  course  of  events.    It  includes  information  that  she  failed  to 
notify superiors of the relationship, which is a requirement of Article 8-H of the Per-
sonnel  Manual;  allowed  her  close  personal  relationship  with  this  subordinate  to 
interfere  with  her  division's  chain  of  command;  contributed  to  an  atmosphere  of 
distrust and deception by attempting to collaborate with the subordinate on a story 
of denial; and truth only surfaced when the subordinate came forward.  The Board 
finds no error or injustice with respect to the comments in this paragraph.   
 
 
20.  The applicant stated that her security clearance was never suspended only 
adjudicated.    According  to  her  supervisor,  the  applicant's  security  clearance  was 
suspended  on  his  recommendation,  which  the  CO  approved.    However,  the  letter 
from the Commandant suggests that the final determination for removal of a security 
clearance rested with him.  He took no action on the recommendation of the CO for 
the  removal  of  the  applicant's  security  clearance.  Under  the  circumstances  of  this 
case, the Board finds that the comment as written is not inaccurate.   
 
 
21.  With respect to the disputed semi-annual OER, the Coast Guard recom-
mended  that  the  reviewer  comments  be  removed  because  the  applicant  was  not 
given  an  opportunity  to  comment  on  them  before  they  were  placed  in  her  record.  
The  Board  agrees  with  the  Coast  Guard's  recommendation  and  will  order  the 
reviewer comments removed from the disputed semiannual OER.  The Coast Guard 
also recommended that the comment -- "taken to mast for violation Art. 92, UCMJ 
(fraternization)" -- be modified to read -- "taken to mast for violation of Article 134 
(fraternization)"  and  the  Board  will  order  this  modification.    This  is  an  immaterial 
change, since the applicant was accused of violating both Articles 134 and 92 at her 
NJP  hearing  and  could  have  been  punished  for  either,  because  each  prohibits  the 
same conduct. 
 
 
22.    The  applicant  also  challenged  approximately  17  other comments on the 
disputed semiannual OER.  The Board will only address the disputed comments in 
which there is some evidence to corroborate the applicant's allegation.  The applicant 
challenged all comments stating or indicating that she was slow in making progress 

                                                 
9   This provisions states "Service custom recognizes that personal relationships, regardless of gender, 
are acceptable provided they do not, either in actuality or in appearance: 1.  Jeopardize the members' 
impartiality, 2.  Undermine the respect for authority inherent in a member's rank or position, 3.  Result 
in members improperly using the relationship for personal gain or favor, or 4.  Violate a punitive arti-
cle of the UCMJ."   

toward  her  OOD  inport  and  underway  qualifications.    The  applicant  claimed  that 
although  she  had  obtained  all  the  necessary  signatures  on  her  OOD  professional 
qualification  standards,  the  CO  failed  to  schedule  a  qualification  board  for  her 
because of his bias against her.  An individual wrote that the applicant occasionally 
trained  under  him  as  break-in  OOD  and  that  she  progressed  normally  toward her 
OOD qualification.  Another female officer wrote that as a qualified OOD herself, she 
thought the applicant was ready to go before a qualification board.  
 

25.  The other comment that the Board needs to address is the one stating --
"Exercised poor grooming & personal hygiene practices; Sent off of bridge to fix hair 
properly." A chief petty officer who was the chief food service specialist stated that 
the  applicant  never  had  a  problem  with  hygiene  and  that  she  was  always  well 
groomed and her uniform was always flawless.  However, the supervisor notes that 
were submitted by the applicant stated that the applicant was counseled about her 
messy  rack,  messy  hair,  and  having  food  on  the  bridge.    Based  on  the  evidence 

23.  The applicant and these other officers gloss over the fact that it is the CO 
who  has  the  responsibility  for  determining  when  an  officer  is  ready  for  an  OOD 
qualification board.  The supervisor's notes submitted by the applicant indicate she 
was counseled on what she needed to do to obtain a qualification board.  In addition, 
the supervisor and reporting officer must not have been satisfied that the applicant 
was  ready  for  a  qualification  board  because  each  wrote  such  comments  in  the 
semi/annual OER.  The supervisor wrote as much in his recent affidavit.  The com-
ments in the supervisor's portion of the OER that the applicant was given extra ship 
handling  opportunities  in  an  effort  to  speed  up  her  qualification  and  learning  and 
that  she  was  unprepared  for  an  opportunity  to  anchor  the  ship  during  patrol  -- 
strongly suggest to this Board that in the judgment of her rating chain she was not 
ready for an OOD qualification board.  The applicant did not deny these statements 
but  instead  offered  an  explanation.  She  stated  that  she  had  been  given  these 
opportunities  but  because  she  was  an  OCS  graduate  she  was  not  given  as  many 
opportunities  as  the  Academy  graduates.    She  admitted  that  when  offered  the 
opportunity to anchor the ship she was nervous because it was her first anchoring 
evolution.  Her "nervousness" could very well have appeared to the rating chain as a 
lack of preparation, since the supervisor's counseling notes stated that she needed to 
be  prepared  when  called  on  to  anchor  the  ship.    The  evidence  offered  by  the 
applicant in this regard is insufficient to prove the supervisor's and reporting officer's 
comments with respect to her slowness in gaining OOD qualification are erroneous.   

 
24.  The applicant alleged that the comment that she was providing marriage 
counseling  to  the  PO-2  is  erroneous.    The  XO  stated in his affidavit that when the 
applicant was questioned about her conversations with the PO-2 she stated that she 
was providing him with marriage counseling.  The denials of the applicant and the 
PO-2 that she did not provide the PO-2 with marriage counseling does not rebut the 
XO's  statement  that  at  the  time  of  his  inquiry  the  applicant  stated  that  she  was 
providing marriage counseling to the PO-2.   
 

submitted in this case, the Board is not persuaded that this comment is incorrect.  The 
Board will not change or remove an OER comment unless the applicant has provided 
a preponderance of evidence that some aspect of that OER is erroneous or violates 
the Personnel Manual.  

 
26.  The Board will order the relief discussed above.  These corrections will not 
enhance  the  applicant's  record  because  it  still  contains  the  letter  of  reprimand,  the 
derogatory  special  OER,  and  the  derogatory  semi/annual  OER.      In  addition,  the 
Board finds it is not likely that she would have been selected for promotion to LTJG 
with  these  corrections  to  the  OERs.    Accordingly,  her  failure  of  selection  for 
promotion to LTJG will not be removed and she will not be reinstated to active duty. 

 
27.  A review of the applicant's military record reveals that it does not contain 
a page 7 revoking authorization for her to wear the cutterman insignia or carry small 
arms.  Therefore the Board makes no finding with regard to her request to have this 
document  removed  from  her  record.    However,  if  such  a  page  7  were  in  the 
applicant's  record,  it  would  remain  there,  unless  the  applicant  could  produce  a 
preponderance of evidence establishing that such an entry was inaccurate or violated 
regulations.   

 
28.  The Board has considered all of the applicant's allegations.  Those not dis-
cussed within the Findings and Conclusions are considered irrelevant to the outcome 
of this case.   

 
29.  Except for the partial relief discussed above, the applicant's request should 

be denied.   
 

 

 

[SIGNATURES AND ORDER ON NEXT PAGE] 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

ORDER 

All other requests for relief are denied. 

The  application  of    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  her 

 
 
military record is granted in part and denied in part, as set forth below.   
 
 
The special OER for the period October XX, XXXX to January XX, XXXX shall 
be corrected by removing the comment "Lack of credibility exacerbated by failure to 
qualify as inport or underway OOD," from the disputed OER.   The special OER shall 
be further corrected by completely removing the reviewer comment page and the "X" 
from block 12.a. 
 
 
The semiannual OER for the period October XX, XXXX to March XX, XXXX 
shall be corrected by modifying the comment "taken to mast for violation of Art 92, 
UCMJ  (fraternization)"  to  read  "taken  to  mast  for  violation  of  Art  134,  UCMJ 
(fraternization)" and by completely removing the reviewer comment page. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Gloria Hardiman-Tobin 

  

 
 
Julia Andrews 

 

 
 
David H. Kasminoff