DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 1999-118 
 
 
   

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
This  proceeding  was  conducted  under  the  provisions  of  section  1552  of 
title 10 and section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  It was docketed on 
May 25, 1999, upon the BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s completed application.1 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  June  8,  2000,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 

 
 

 

The  applicant,  an  xxxxxxxxxx,  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  military 
record  by  removing  three  negative  “page  7”  entries  (Administrative  Remarks; 
form  CG-3307)  dated  June  15,  199x.    He  also  asked  the  Board  to  remove  from 
Coast  Guard  records  his  command’s  negative  endorsement  of  his  request  for 
assignment to recruiting duty (Assignment Data Card; form CG-3698A), as well 
as any other negative correspondence concerning his request for recruiting duty.   
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant alleged that on May 28, 199x, he submitted a request to his 
command  to  be  permitted  to  apply  for  an  assignment  to  recruiting  duty  in 
August 199x, at the end of his then-current tour of duty at the xxxx in xxxxx.  He 
alleged  that  he  had  all  of  the  qualifications  required  for  recruiters  listed  in 

                                                 
1  Because the applicant submitted substantial new evidence on March 27, 2000, he waived the 
statutory 10-month deadline for the Board to reach a final decision, in accordance with 33 C.F.R. 
§ 52.61(c). 

Articles  4.E.2.  and  4.E.7.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  and  that  his  request  was 
submitted well before the published deadline for such requests,  xxxxxx, 199x. 

 
The applicant further alleged that on June 9, 199x, a chief petty officer at 
 
xxxx  told  him  that  his  recruiting  package  was  being  “put  on  hold”  because 
someone had lodged a complaint against him.  The chief petty officer told him he 
would be notified about the complaint at a later date. 
 
 
On June 18, 199x, a master chief petty officer (MCPO) presented him with 
a negative page 7 to acknowledge for entry in his record.  The page 7 included 
the names of two complainants, xxx and xxx.  The MCPO told him that one of the 
complainants (xxx) had drafted the page 7.  The applicant alleged that he told the 
MCPO that the page 7 was inaccurate and that he would not sign it.2  The MCPO 
responded that he would discuss the contents of the page 7 with xxxxx.   
 

 

Later that day, the applicant alleged, the MCPO presented him with a sec-
ond version of the page 7, prepared and signed by xxxxx.  This second version 
omitted xxx’s name and “about half the text” of the first version.  He alleged that 
this proved that the page 7 was false because xxx must have refused to sign it.  
The  applicant  further  alleged  that  although  he  told  the  MCPO  that  it  was  still 
inaccurate, the MCPO insisted that he sign it, so he did.  The MCPO also told him 
that  he  would  have  to  request  recruiting  duty  at  a  later  date.    The  applicant 
alleged that someone told him afterward that the reason the page 7 was prepared 
and his request for recruiting duty was placed on hold was because xxx was also 
applying for recruiting duty. 
 
 
On  August  10,  199x,  the  applicant  alleged,  when  he  was  submitting  his 
second request for recruiting duty, the MCPO presented him with a third version 
of  the  page  7.    The  applicant  stated  that  in  this  third  draft,  the  text  had  been 
rewritten, it was signed by the commanding officer (CO) of xxxxx, and it accused 
him  of  making  inappropriate  comments  on  June  5,  199x.    He  alleged  that  this 
page 7 is patently false because he did not work at xxxx on June 5, 199x, and was 
not even on base that day.  He alleged that June 5th was an RDO (regular day 
off), and the xxxx was closed.3 
 
 
Therefore, the applicant stated, he submitted a request to speak with the 
CO  about  his  unfair  treatment.    He  alleged  that  he  submitted  this  request  on 
                                                 
2  No record of this first draft of the page 7 appears in the applicant’s record. 
3  The applicant submitted a copy of an e-mail message dated February 4, 2000, from one of his 
previous supervisors at xxxxxx.  The supervisor stated in the e-mail message that June 5, 199x, 
was  an  RDO  day.    In  a  telephone  conversation  with  a  BCMR  staff  member,  this  supervisor 
explained that because the applicant’s xxxxx operated on an alternate work schedule, every other 
Friday was an RDO.  He confirmed that June 5, 199x, was an RDO for the xxxxx. 

August  17,  199x,  but  did  not  get  to  speak  to  the  CO  until  September  17,  199x.  
The applicant thought his meeting with the CO went well.  However, afterward, 
he received a memorandum from the CO stating, “What occurred this summer 
has certainly precluded you from a recruiting duty assignment during summer 
of 9x.” 
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  he  applied  for  recruiting  duty  again  after  the 
Coast Guard issued ALDIST xxxxx  on October 2, 199x, soliciting applications for 
100 new recruiters, but his command negatively endorsed his request.  The appli-
cant  alleged  that  it  is  unfair  that  one  incident  is  preventing  him  from  being 
assigned to recruiting duty.  Instead, he stated, his request should be evaluated 
on the basis of the record of his entire 13 years on active duty.   
 

The applicant further stated that rather than assigning him to recruiting 
duty, he was later told he might be assigned to an xxxxx in xxxxx.  He alleged 
that on his Assignment Data Card, he had listed xxxx as one of his least preferred 
choices  for  his  next  duty  station.    Therefore,  he  believes  the  Coast  Guard 
attempted  to  retaliate  against  him  by  assigning  him  to  his  least  favored  duty 
station because of his attempts to protest his CO’s decision via his congressman.  
Later, he was issued orders for xxxxx in xxxxxx, his current duty station.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On January 14, 2000, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard submitted an 
 
advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny the applicant’s request for 
lack of proof. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel argued that the applicant has failed to prove that the 
page 7s4 in his record dated June 15, 199x, are in error or unjust.  He argued that 
the documentation of the applicant’s conduct in two negative page 7s was within 
the authority of his supervisor, xxxx, and CO, under COMDTINST 1000.14A.  He 
also argued that “[a]bsent strong evidence to the contrary, Coast Guard officials, 
such  as  Applicant’s  Commanding  Officer  and  immediate  supervisor,  are 
presumed to have executed their duties correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.”  
See Arens v. Unites States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 
F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979). 
 
 
The Chief Counsel submitted with his advisory opinion a memorandum 
prepared by the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC).  CGPC stated that, 
aside from the two negative page 7s dated June 15, 199x, in the applicant’s per-
sonal data record, the Coast Guard has a negative endorsement dated October 
                                                 
4  The Chief Counsel stated that there are only two page 7s in the applicant’s record dated June 
15, 199x:  one signed by xxx and one signed by the CO of xxxx on August 10, 199x. 

30, 199x, attached to his Assignment Data Form (CG-3698a) requesting recruiting 
duty, which is responsive to his request for relief from the BCMR. 
 
The Chief Counsel submitted with his advisory opinion a sworn declara-
 
tion signed by xxxx. Xxxx stated that in June 199x, he was the xxxx at xxxx and 
“was responsible for inspecting [the applicant’s] work as a xxxx.”  He affirmed 
that the page 7 he signed on June 15, 199x, “was true and accurate.”  He alleged 
that, prior to preparing the page 7, he “was concerned this might be viewed as a 
personal issue between [the applicant and himself], so [he] conferred with other 
senior petty officers (i.e., watch captains, other Q.A. inspectors) about his attitude 
and  working  with  others.    This  view  was  also  shared  by  other  senior  petty 
officers in this command.” 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 
 
On  January  19,  2000,  the  BCMR  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  Chief 
Counsel’s  advisory  opinion  and  invited  him  to  respond  within  15  days.    The 
applicant requested an extension to gather additional evidence, which was grant-
ed.  On March 27, 2000, the BCMR received his response. 
 
 
The applicant reiterated many of the same allegations made in his original 
application.    In  addition,  he  stated  that  the  page  7  signed  by  xxx  is  untrue 
because xxx never counseled him about the matter, and they never spoke to each 
other again after June 18, 199x.  Thus, he alleged that xxx’s declaration constitut-
ed perjury.   
 

The applicant alleged that no superiors ever held a meeting with xxx and 
him to discuss the allegations against him.  The applicant stated that the Coast 
Guard should not have made two page 7 entries in his record for one incident.  
He alleged that the MCPO who gave him the page 7 signed by his CO told him 
that  there  should  only  be  one  page  7  in  his  record  rather  than  two  or  three.  
Furthermore, he alleged, he had told the MCPO that the page 7 signed by his CO 
was  untrue,  but  the  MCPO  told  him  that his  signature  was  just  considered  an 
acknowledgment  and  that  he  could  dispute  the  truth  of  the  matter  “at  a  later 
date.”   
 
In addition, the applicant alleged that his request to speak to the CO per-
sonally was delayed for a month.  By the time he was permitted to see the CO, 
the one who had signed the page 7 had been transferred, and a new CO who did 
not know the people involved had just arrived. 
 

The  applicant  stated  that,  although  he  submitted  his  third  request  for 
recruiting  duty  on  October  7,  199x,  just  five  days  after  the  announcement,  his 

request  was  not  submitted  to  CGPC  by  his  command  until  after  the  deadline, 
October 31, 199x.  The applicant alleged that his command’s delay of his package 
contributed to his failure to be selected as a recruiter.   
 
 
The applicant also alleged that in December 199x, he initially received an 
inaccurate  performance  evaluation  for  that  marking  period.    He  alleged  that 
when he first protested the lowest set of marks he had ever received, totaling just 
99,  the  commander  who  had  evaluated  him  offered  to  raise  his  marks  by  3 
points.    However,  he  chose  to  appeal  the  marks  anyway,  and  on  January  27, 
199x, his marks were raised by 11 points. 
 

On January 21, 199x, the applicant stated, he received an e-mail message 
indicating that he would be transferred to xxxx.  He alleged this was because his 
command at xxxx had “lost” his Assignment Duty Card.  He stated that, when he 
asked  to  leave  active  duty  and  enter  the  Reserves  because  of  this  pending 
assignment, he was offered an assignment at xxxxx, his last preferred choice.  He 
accepted  this  assignment  even  though  it  created  a  hardship  for  his  family 
because  his  wife,  a  registered  nurse,  does  not  speak  xxxx.    The  applicant 
submitted  evidence  indicating  that  his  transfer  to  xxxxx  was  complicated  by 
numerous  administrative  problems.  He  alleged  that  his  threatened  transfer  to 
xxx  and  the  problems  he  encountered  regarding  his  transfer  were  caused  or 
exacerbated by his previous problems with his command and his letters to his 
senator.    Furthermore,  he  alleged  that  the  first  set  of  evaluation  marks  he 
received  at  his  new  station  were  based  on  the  last,  poor  set  of  marks  he  had 
received at xxx. 
 
 
Finally, the applicant alleged that all of these problems stemmed from his 
willingness  to  speak  up  about  legitimate  safety  problems  at  xxxx.    He  alleged 
that  xxxxx  was  not  qualified  to  perform  his  duties  and  often  had  to  ask  the 
applicant  where  certain  parts  of  the  xxxxx  were  before  he  could  inspect  them.  
However,  when  raising  safety  concerns,  he  “always  went  through  the  proper 
channels and followed the chain of command.  On several occasions, co-workers 
and I submitted safety concerns in writing to the leading chief for action.  Some 
co-workers military and civilian viewed this as not being a team member.  I did 
not let this affect my work and my ‘safety first’ ethic.” 
 
 
The applicant submitted with his response four affidavits signed by Coast 
Guard employees and one signed by his pastor.  One of his supervisors at xxx 
stated  that  he  regretted  not  having  had  any  input  on  the  applicant’s  previous 
performance evaluation.  He also praised the applicant highly for his inspiring 
“dedication, commitment, and professionalism” and his “priceless” expertise.  A 
xxx  at  xxxx  stated  that  the  applicant’s  “knowledge  and  experience  [are]  well 
above most of the military personnel that are assigned to our xxx” and that he 

appreciated the applicant’s “efforts to be a team player and [willingness] to share 
his  experience  and  knowledge.”    Two  others  praised  the  applicant’s  expertise 
and job performance. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
 The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on July 15, 198x, for a term of 
four years.  On September 18, 198x, he advanced from seaman to xxxx.5  In 198x, 
he received a Good Conduct Award for his service since July 198x.  On June 1, 
199x, a xxxxx at xxxxxx made a page 7 entry in the applicant’s record, praising 
his  “positive  attitude,  high  motivation,  and  technical  expertise”  and  his 
willingness to work extra hours.  He was advanced to xxxx.  In 199x, he received 
a  second  Good  Conduct  Award,  and  in  199x,  he  received  a  Coast  Guard 
Commendation Medal for outstanding achievement. 
 

In 199x, two page 7s documenting his excellent performance were entered 
in his record by the commanding officer and the executive officer of xxxxx.  In 
199x, he received his third Good Conduct Award, and in 199x, the commanding 
officer  of  xxxxx  awarded  him  a  letter  of  commendation  for  his  “outstanding 
performance  of  duty.”    In  July  199x,  the  applicant  received  his  fourth  Good 
Conduct Award. 
 

The applicant’s record contains two page 7s dated June 15, 199x, entered 
into his record by his command at the xxxxxx in xxxxx.  The first, signed by xxxx 
and the applicant, states the following: 
 

You are being counseled this date concerning your attitude, working with others 
(i.e., peers and seniors) and by not showing proper military customs and courte-
sies. 
 
You  make  many  inappropriate  comments  and  actions.    You  do  not  work  as  a 
team member and frequently cause conflicts. 
 
By showing a willingness to improve and change your actions, I am confident we 
will not have to pursue this any further. 

 
 
On August 6, 199x, the applicant submitted a second request to submit an 
Assignment Data Card for recruiting duty to his xxx supervisor, xxxx.  The card 
indicates  that  his  current  tour  would  end  in  July  199x  and  that  he  would  be 
available for a recruiting assignment in August 199x.  The request was approved 
by  xxxx  and  another  supervisor.    However,  on  August  11,  199x,  the  MCPO 
recommended  that  the  request  be  disapproved,  and  the  executive  officer,  a 
commander,  disapproved  the  request.    As  a  reason  for  the  denial,  the  MCPO 
                                                 
5  Until recently, the xxxx rating was denoted as xx. 

wrote on the request form that the applicant “lied about letter of recommenda-
tion from [xxxx].  I will not approve any further request from this individual.” 
 

On August 10, 199x, the second page 7 dated June 15, 199x, was signed by 

the CO of xxxx and the applicant.  It states the following: 
 

9xJUN15:  [The applicant] was overheard making inappropriate comments con-
cerning the ability and qualifications of the xxxxx Inspectors on 9xJUN05.  Mem-
ber was counseled that by doing so he used poor judgment in his lack of proper 
military courtesy, attitude and that his actions did not contribute to a team effort 
and  frequently  cause  conflicts.    Member  was  advised  that  any  future  incidents 
may lead to disciplinary action. 

 

On September 2, 199x, the applicant signed an Assignment Data Card list-
ing as his preferred duty stations for his next tour the xxxx in (1) xxxx, (2) xxxxxx, 
(3) xxxxxxx, (4) the xxxxxx, (5) xxxxxxxx, (6) xxxxx, and (7) xxxxx.  He listed his 
least desired stations as (1) xxxxxx and (2) xxxxxx.  

 
On September 17, 199x, the applicant met with the CO of xxxx to discuss 
his situation.  On September 21, 199x, the CO sent the applicant a memorandum 
in which he stated the following: 

 
Following our meeting Thursday afternoon, I thoroughly reviewed your file.  As 
I  mentioned  during  our  meeting,  your  marks  indicate  your  rating  in  the  per-
formance dimension as a mechanic is comparable to the best xxxx we have in the 
Coast  Guard.    However,  several  of  your  marks  in  areas  that  deal  with 
interpersonal  skills  are  lower  than  what  I  would  expect  when  compared  with 
your mechanical skills. … 
 
What occurred this summer has certainly precluded you from a recruiting duty 
assignment summer of 9x.  You do have control of your destiny, though, and I 
strongly recommend you seek assistance through [the Employee Assistance Pro-
gram] and work with [the MCPO] to develop a plan to improve your interper-
sonal skills. … 

 
 
On October 2, 199x, the Coast Guard issued ALDIST xxx, announcing the 
need  for  100  new  recruiters.    The  deadline  for  submitting  applications  was 
October 31, 199x.  On October 7, 199x, the applicant signed an Assignment Data 
Card requesting recruiting duty.  He signed a request to submit the Assignment 
Data Card on October 13, 199x.  One supervisor recommended approval of his 
request, but xxxxx did not.  Xxxxxxxx advised the applicant “to wait for evalua-
tion time due to previous incident.”  On October 31, 199x, the CO of xxxx marked 
on  the  card  that  his  request  was  disapproved  and  that  the  CO  did  not 
recommend him for recruiting duty.  The CO wrote that the applicant “lacks the 
maturity,  judgment,  and  willingness  to  work  as  a  team  to  be  an  asset  to  the 
recruiting  ranks.”  Nevertheless,  the  applicant  asked  that  his  Assignment  Data 

Card be forwarded to CGPC.  This Assignment Data Card was not received by 
CGPC  until  after  the  deadline,  on  November  4,  199x.    CGPC  later  denied  the 
applicant’s request based in part on his command’s failure to endorse it favora-
bly.6 

 
On  November  4,  199x,  the  applicant  resubmitted  the  same  Assignment 
Data Card he had completed on September 2nd.  This card was approved by his 
CO on November 9, 199x. 

 
On  November  30,  199x,  the  Coast  Guard  responded  to  an  October  19, 
199x,  letter  from  one of  the  applicant’s  senators,  inquiring  into  his  command’s 
non-recommendation for his assignment to recruiting duty.  In its response to the 
senator, the Coast Guard stated that 

 
[The applicant] was counseled on numerous occasions that he failed to meet the 
primary requirement for recruiting duty as described in section 4.E.2 of the Coast 
Guard Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M100.6A) which is:  “Must consistently 
exhibit  mature  judgment,  even  temperament,  tact,  diplomacy,  and  discretion.”  
This was and remains the only reason that he was not recommended for recruit-
ing duty.  [The applicant] showed disrespect and made inappropriate comments 
towards  a  senior  petty  officer  when  asked  to  redo  work  which  was  not  done 
properly the first time.  Since this was not an isolated incident for [the applicant], 
the Command Master Chief formed a plan to give [the applicant] the best oppor-
tunity to become a Coast  Guard Recruiter.  This plan involved counseling [the 
applicant] on the areas where he fell short of the Coast Guard requirements for 
Recruiters  and  advised  him  to  wait  six  months  before  applying.    This  delay 
would give [the applicant’s] supervisors time to observe him for any changes in 
attitude and would hopefully result in a favorable endorsement. 
 
[The  applicant]  met  with  the  Commanding  Officer  to  voice  his  objections  …  .  
Following  this  meeting  the  Commanding  Officer  again  outlined,  in  a  memo  to 
[the  applicant],  the  problem  areas  that  were  preventing  him  from  receiving  a 
positive  endorsement,  and  recommended  specific  actions  [he]  should  take  to 
receive a positive endorsement. 
 
In  December  199x,  the  applicant  received  his  evaluation  marks  for  the 
marking period ending October 31, 199x.  His total score was 99, which was 18 
points  lower  than  his  previous  evaluation.    The  form  had  been  signed  by  his 
supervisor on September 20, 199x; by the marking official on October 27, 199x; 
and by the approving official on December 10, 199x. 

 
On January 18, 199x, the applicant appealed his performance marks on the 
grounds  that  neither  he  nor  his  xxxxx  supervisor  were  allowed  to  have  any 
input, as required by Articles 10.B.4.d.2. and 10.B.4.d.3.d. of the Personnel Man-

                                                 
6  CGPC reported that it received over 400 applications for the 100 open positions. 

ual.  In his appeal, he explained in detail why he felt the marks were too low.  
Overall, he asked that his total marks be raised by 14 points, from 99 to 113. 

 
In  an  undated  memorandum,  the  commander  who  had  approved  the 
applicant’s low  marks reported to the station’s executive officer that the appli-
cant had received them due in part to his conduct as reflected in the page 7s and 
in part to his own interpretation of the standards, which might be stricter than 
that of previous approving officials.  In addition, the commander stated that the 
applicant’s score for professional qualities had decreased by 5 points because  

 
[h]e basically presented a proposed recommendation to us for recruiting duty as 
being  drafted  by  his  supervisor  …,  when  in  fact  [his  supervisor]  had  told  him 
that he would not be recommended for recruiting leave.  This happened around 
the last week of August.  I personally counseled [the applicant] on this incident 
and informed him at that  time that while I wasn’t booking  him [for lying], the 
incident would be reflected in his marks.  He was also counseled that given the 
lack of trust from this incident, he would not get a favorable recommendation for 
recruiting duty. … 
 
The marks were signed and forwarded on 27 Oct [199x].  I was notified in mid-
November  … that we’d received Congressional Inquiry into the circumstances, 
which led to his unfavorable command recommendation for recruiting duty.  His 
[page 7s] should make it clear why he wasn’t recommended for recruiting duty 
and the dates on the [page 7 and evaluation form] show that the lowering of his 
marks  [was]  due  to  his  performance  for  the  period  and  [was]  not  in  any  way 
influenced by the Inquiry.  
 
On March 4, 199x, in response to the applicant’s appeal, the CO raised his 

 
evaluation marks by 11 points.  
 

On March 15, 199x, CGPC responded to a further inquiry from the appli-
cant’s  senator  regarding  his  next  assignment.    CGPC  stated  that  the  applicant 
had been  

 
identified as a possible candidate for an assignment to xxxxx, due to the need for 
his qualifications in that area. … Once [he] gained knowledge of the possibility of 
an  assignment  to  xxxxx,  his  least  desired  area,  he  immediately  concluded  that 
this  was  due  to  his  request  for  your  assistance  regarding  recruiting  duty.    I 
assure  you  that  this  was  strictly  a  preliminary  decision,  and  had  absolutely  no 
relationship to his congressional inquiry. 
 
As the time grew nearer to make final assignment decisions for the 199x transfer 
season, [the applicant’s] Assignment Officer identified a need for [his] qualifica-
tions at xxxxx, a choice listed on his ADC.  On January 29, 199x, [he] was issued 
official transfer orders to xxxxxx. 
 
In your letter of January 27, 199x, you requested that a review of the administra-
tive inconsistencies described in your letter be conducted by someone outside of 

[the applicant’s] command.  We have forwarded your letter to the Office of xxxx 
at Coast Guard Headquarters to address these issues in a separate letter. 

 
 
On  December  15,  199x,  the  Offices  of  XXXXXX  at  Coast  Guard 
Headquarters  reported  to  the  senator  that  it  had  reviewed  the  applicant’s 
complaints and that most of the applicant’s concerns had been resolved because 
his evaluation marks had been raised and he was “very pleased” with his assign-
ment at xxxxx.  His remaining concerns were pending resolution via the BCMR.    
 
 
marks shaded in gray: 
 

The applicant’s recent evaluation marks are as follows, with the appealed 

STATION 

JOB PER-
FORMANCE 

LEADERSHIP 

PROFESSIONALISM 

TOTAL 

MILITARY 
BEARING 

 

DATE 
10/31/9x 
4/30/9x 
10/31/9x 
10/31/9x 
4/30/9x 

 

 
 
 
 
 

39 
39 
40 
36 
40 

 

35 
34 
32 
29 
35 

12 
10 
10 
8 
11 

 

31 
33 
28 
26 
31 

 

117 
116 
110 
99 
117 

Previously, the applicant received total marks of 115 in October 199x, 120 

 
 
 
in April 199x, 113 in October 199x, and 118 in April 199x. 
 

APPLICABLE LAWS 

 
 
COMDTINST  1000.14A,  “Preparation  and  Submission  of  Administrative 
Remarks (CG-3307),” authorizes commanding officers to prepare negative page 7 
entries  for  the  PDRs  of  members  who  commit  acts  that  are  contrary  to  Coast 
Guard  rules  and  policies  but  that  the  officer,  in  his  discretion,  does  not  deem 
serious enough to require non-judicial punishment or court-martial.  Enclosure 
(5) to the instruction states that a negative page 7 “must be member-specific and 
describe  who,  what,  when,  where,  why  and  how.”    The  authority  to  prepare 
page 7s may be delegated. 
 
 
Article 4.E.2.a. of the Personnel Manual contains the minimum qualifica-
tions for members seeking a special duty billet, such as a recruiting billet.  The 
first listed qualification is that the member “[m]ust consistently exhibit mature 
judgment,  even  temperament,  tact,  diplomacy,  and  discretion.”    The  other  12 
listed  qualifications  include  having  a  sharp  military  bearing,  no  felony  convic-
tions, no recent alcohol incidents, and no recent weight problems.  Article 4.E.7.c. 
states  that,  in  addition  to  the  qualifications  listed  in  Article  4.E.2.a.,  members 
who apply for a recruiting position must have served at least one full enlistment 
and should preferably have “a good career pattern of general duty … because a 
recruiter should have a wide knowledge of the Coast Guard’s many duties and 
activities.” 

 
 
Article 4.E.7.d. states that “[a]pplications for recruiting duty shall not be 
made earlier than one year prior to completion of [the] member’s present tour of 
duty.  Requests shall be submitted on an [Assignment Data Card] to [CGPC] via 
the CO.”  Article 4.E.2.c. states that commanding officers must endorse a mem-
ber’s application for special duty by either recommending or not recommending 
him or her for the special duty and by stating that the member meets the qualifi-
cations cited in 4.E.2.a.   
 

 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 
 
The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of 
the applicant's military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submissions, 
and applicable law: 
 

1. 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to sec-

tion 1552 of title 10 of the United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 

2. 

Two negative page 7s appear in the applicant’s record concerning 
his conduct in the summer of 199x.  The applicant has not proved by a prepon-
derance  of  the  evidence  that  they  are  either  unjust  or  erroneous.    He  has  not 
proved  that  his  conduct  and  attitude  were  other  than  as  described  in  the  two 
page 7s.  Although June 5, 199x, was apparently an RDO for his xxx, he did not 
prove that he was not overheard making inappropriate comments on that date or 
on some other date.  The applicant has not presented sufficient evidence to over-
come the presumption that his superior officers acted correctly, lawfully, and in 
good  faith.  Arens  v.  United  States,  969  F.2d  1034,  1037  (1992);  Sanders  v.  United 
States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979). 

 
3. 

The applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence 
that only one of the two disputed page 7s should be in his record.  Although both 
page 7s are dated June 15, 199x, they are signed by different superior officers and 
contain different characterizations of the applicant’s conduct.  He has not proved 
that the first page 7 was unauthorized.  Nor has he proved that his commanding 
officer, who signed the second page 7, was unaware of the first page 7 or intend-
ed the second page 7 to be substituted for the first.  Therefore, the Board finds no 
reason to remove either of the two disputed page 7s from the applicant’s record. 
 
 
The applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence 
that his command unfairly blocked his assignment to a recruiting billet.  Under 
Article 4.E.2.c. of the Personnel Manual, a member’s command must certify that 
he “consistently exhibit[s] mature judgment, even temperament, tact, diplomacy, 
and  discretion,”  which  is  one  of  the  qualifications  listed  in  Article  4.E.2.a.    In 
light of the applicant’s conduct and attitude as described in the page 7s, it was 

4. 

6. 

reasonable for the applicant’s command to hold his Assignment Data Card until 
his  chain  of  command  could  decide  whether  he  met  that  qualification.    More-
over, in light of the applicant’s conduct and attitude as described in the page 7s, 
it was reasonable for the applicant’s command to decide to negatively endorse 
his  request  for  a  recruiting  position.    Therefore,  the  Board  finds  no  reason  to 
remove  from  Coast  Guard  records  any  documentation  concerning  his  com-
mand’s negative endorsement of his request for recruiting duty.  
 
 
Although the applicant’s Assignment Data Card apparently arrived 
at CGPC after the deadline announced in ALDIST xxxxx, the applicant has not 
proved  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  his  failure  to  be  assigned  to 
recruiting duty was caused by this administrative error, rather than by the pro-
fessional judgment of the authorized Coast Guard officers that he was not one of 
the  best  qualified  candidates.    Nor  has  he  proved  that  if  his  Assignment  Data 
Card had been received by CGPC before the deadline, he would likely have been 
chosen for recruiting duty.  His command’s negative endorsement and the dis-
puted page 7s provided an ample basis for CGPC not to select him for recruiting 
duty given the qualifications required under Article 4.E.2.a. 
 
 
The applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence 
that his several letters to his senator caused the Coast Guard to retaliate against 
him in any way.  The evidence indicates that the marks that originally appeared 
on  his  evaluation  form  for  the  period  ending  October  31,  199x,  were  assigned 
before his rating chain had any knowledge of his correspondence with the sena-
tor.  There is no evidence that his consideration for an assignment in xxxx was 
motivated by a desire to retaliate against him rather than by the detailer’s profes-
sional judgment that such an assignment would meet the legitimate needs of the 
Service.  Likewise, while the applicant clearly encountered administrative prob-
lems  regarding  his  transfer  to  xxxxxx,  there  is  no  evidence  to  indicate  that  his 
command  intentionally  created  those  problems.    In  fact,  the evidence  indicates 
that his command accommodated his request to delay his departure so that he 
could attend his child’s graduation and facilitate the sale of his home. 
 
The applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence 
 
that any of the evaluation marks in his record are erroneous or unjust.  He has 
not proved that it was improper for his poor conduct and attitude, as described 
in the two disputed page 7s, to be reflected in his marks for that period.  In addi-
tion, he has failed to prove that his marks for the evaluation periods ending April 
30,  199x,  and  October  31,  199x,  were  in  any  way  tainted  by  consideration  of 
inappropriate factors.  The Board notes that the applicant’s total marks for those 
latter two periods are not unlike his total marks for previous evaluation periods. 
 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request for relief should be denied. 

5. 

7. 

8. 

 
 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

The application of XXXXXXXX, USCG, for correction of his military record 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

is hereby denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 
 Terence W. Carlson 

 

 

 
 
 Pamela M. Pelcovits 

 

 

 
 Edmund T. Sommer, Jr.