DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2000-137 
 
 
   

 

 
 

 

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 30, 2000, upon the BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s completed application. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  April  12,  2001,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant, a xxxxxxxx, asked the Board to correct her military record 
by removing a negative “page 7” (Administrative Remarks form CG-3307) dated 
April  5,  2000,  which  was  written  in  support  of  low  marks  she  received  on  a 
performance evaluation for the period October 1, 1999, through March 31, 2000.  
The page 7 prepared by her supervisor, a TC1, stated the following: 

 
[The  applicant]  has  not  earned  my  recommendation  for  advancement.  
During  the  marking  period  [she]  briefly  stood  break-in  watches  in  the 
Group xxxxx as we attempted to qualify her as a xxxx.  During this time 
she showed no initiative to do so.  On two occasions she was found in the 
ODO bunkroom in bed during the work day, once while on watch.  She 
routinely missed radio calls.  On her last radio watch she missed several 
calls  from  a  CG  helo  which  was  carrying  both  the  Group  Commander, 
and District Seven//OSR//.  After the helo incident command concern 
arose  over  her  competency  as  a  xxxxxxx.    She  was  removed  from  the 
break-in watch rotation and assigned to dayworking duties.  During this 
time the only project she showed any interest in was drafting an ADC in 
which  she  offered  to  re-enlist  “if”  they  assigned  her  to  RuitOff  xxxxx.  

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2000-137                                                      p. 2 

Due  to  the  lack  of  command  confidence  in  this  PO’s  ability  to  stand  a 
proficient radio watch, and her lack of sincere motivation to learn how to 
do so, her access to the xxxxxx was rescinded.  She has been assigned to 
the xxxxx force since her return from leave, and is pending transfer back 
to xxxxxxxx. 

 
 
The applicant alleged that none of the incidents described in the  page 7 
happened  during  the  marking  period.    She  alleged  that  after  missing  several 
radio calls in August 1999, which she admitted was a serious mistake, she was 
removed from the xxxx break-in rotation even though she had almost completed 
the  xxxx  qualification  process.    However,  she  alleged,  this  all  happened  in 
August 1999, before the marking period began. Therefore, the remarks about her 
watchstanding during the marking period are clearly inaccurate because she was 
no longer standing watches. 
 

The applicant further alleged that she completed the ADC to apply for a 
recruiting position on September 19, 1999, and it was disapproved by her com-
mand one week later.  Therefore, the comments about her interest in and efforts 
to  become  a  Coast  Guard  recruiter  are  also  inaccurate  because  her  application 
was made and disapproved before the marking period ever began. 

 
The applicant alleged that because she was in her seventh month of preg-
nancy,  an  obstetrician  at  the  Naval  hospital  sent  her  supervisor  a  list  of  duty 
limitations in August 1999.  One limitation was that she was supposed to rest for 
20 minutes every four hours.  She alleged that she never laid down unless her 
supervisor or whoever was in charge at the time told her she could do so, and 
she never laid down for more than 20 minutes, except at lunch time, when she 
took naps.  Moreover, she stated, this occurred only in August and September 
1999, before the marking period began. 

 
The applicant alleged that after she was removed from the watch rotation 
and during the first month of the marking period, she “dayworked for Opera-
tions.”  Her duties included ordering supplies, correcting charts, copying man-
uals and hurricane plans, loading “crypto,” destroying superceded material, run-
ning  errands,  standing  by  the  radio  when  the  xxxx  stepped  out  for  a  minute, 
filing, logging in information, answering phones, and cleaning the “head.”  From 
October 29, 1999, through February 11, 2000, she was on maternity leave.  When 
she  returned  from  maternity  leave,  she  was  assigned  to  work  with  the  Group 
xxxxxxxx.  
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2000-137                                                      p. 3 

 
On November 30, 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 “[a]bsent strong evidence to the contrary, Coast 
Guard officials, such as Applicant’s Commanding Officer and immediate super-
visors,  are  presumed  to  have  executed  their  duties  correctly,  lawfully,  and  in 
good faith.”  See Arens v. Unites States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sand-
ers v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979).  He alleged that because the 
applicant  failed  to  submit  any  evidence  corroborating  her  allegations,  she  has 
failed to overcome this presumption of regularity.  
 
 
The Chief Counsel submitted with his advisory opinion a memorandum 
prepared by the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC).  CGPC stated that 
the applicant’s marks show that her job performance was declining.  CGPC also 
pointed out that an “approving official’s decision on advancement recommenda-
tion is final and cannot be appealed.”  Therefore, although the applicant could 
have appealed her evaluation marks (but she did not), she could not appeal the 
decision not to recommend her for advancement, which was documented on the 
page 7. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 
On  December  5,  2000,  the  BCMR  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  Chief 
 
Counsel’s  advisory  opinion  and  invited  her  to  respond  within  15  days.    No 
response was received.  
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
 The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on xxxxxx, for a term of four 
years.  Upon finishing boot camp, she  was  assigned to the cutter xxxxxx.  The 
applicant’s record contains two page 7s prepared by her supervisor on the cutter.  
The  first,  dated  March  31,  1998,  states  that  she  had  been  assigned  a  mark  of 
“progressing” because she remained unqualified as a xxxx.  It further states that 
“[a]lthough this condition is not due to negligence on her part, she does not yet 
possess  the  technical  skills  necessary  for  a recommendation  for  advancement.”  
The second, dated January 20, 1999, states that she “failed to conduct a proper 
security check prior to departing Radio Central” and that she was advised that 
“any  future  incidents  of  this  nature  may  lead  to  further  disciplinary  action.”  
After the applicant reported her pregnancy in April 1999, she was transferred to 
the  Group  xxxxxxxxx,  where  she  served  until  her  maternity  leave  began, 
apparently  on  October  29,  1999.    After  returning  from  maternity  leave  in 
February 2000, she was temporarily assigned to another unit, the xxxxxxxxxx. 
 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2000-137                                                      p. 4 

 
Coast  Guard  enlisted  members  are  evaluated  semi-annually  in  22  per-
formance categories on a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 being best.  The applicant’s record 
includes the following marks, which she received as a xxx: 

 

MARKS 

OF 6 

MARKS 

OF 3 

 
 
4 
 
9 

MARKS 

OF 4 
15 
15 
15 
22 
13 

 

DATE 
3/31/98 
9/30/98 
3/31/99 
9/30/99 
3/31/00 

 
 

MARKS 

OF 5 

5 
6 
2 
 
 

CONDUCT 

 

S 
S 
S 
S 
S 

RECOMMENDATION FOR 

ADVANCEMENT 

Progressing 

Recommended 

Not Recommended 

Recommended 

Not recommended 

2 
1 
1 
 
 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2000-137                                                      p. 5 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
 
Article 10.B. of the Personnel Manual governs the preparation of Enlisted 
Performance Evaluation Forms (EPEFs).  Article 10.B.1.b. states that “[e]ach com-
manding officer must ensure all enlisted members under their command receive 
accurate, fair, objective, and timely evaluations.”  Each enlisted member is evalu-
ated by a “rating chain” of three persons: a supervisor, a marking official, and an 
approving  official.    Article  10.B.4.d.    After  the  supervisor  and  marking  official 
assign the member marks in the performance categories, the EPEF is reviewed by 
the approving official, who must concur in marks and indicate whether he or she 
recommends  the  member  for  advancement  to  the  next  highest  grade.    Article 
10.B.4.d.(5).    A  member  cannot  take  the  examination  for  advancement  without 
the recommendation of her approving official. 
 

Article 10.B.7. states that in deciding whether to recommend a member for 
advancement,  the  rating  chain  must  consider  the  member’s  past  performance 
and ability to perform the duties of the next higher pay grade. 
 
 
Under Article 10.B.7.a.(4), if a member’s approving official does not rec-
ommend her for advancement or marks her as “progressing,” she must be coun-
seled, and a page 7 concerning the counseling must be entered in her record.  The 
page  7  must  explain  the  rating  chain’s  reasons  for  not  recommending  her  for 
advancement.  Under Article 10.B.7.a.(5), an approving official’s decision about 
whether  to  recommend  the  member  for  advancement  is  final  and  cannot  be 
appealed,  although  a  member  may  appeal  her  performance  marks.    Article 
10.B.10. 
 
 
ALCGENL  048/99,  issued  by  CGPC  on  August  3,  1999,  announced  the 
annual  solicitation  for  applications  for  recruiter  duty.    The  bulletin  stated  that 
interested  members  should  promptly  complete  an  application  and  submit  the 
application  and  a  brief  resume  no  later  than  September  1,  1999,  to  the  Coast 
Guard Recruiting Center.  
 

 

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. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  the  statement  in  the  disputed  page  7 
regarding  her  being  found  in  bed  twice  during  the  work  day,  once  while  on 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2000-137                                                      p. 6 

watch,  should  be  removed  from  her  record  because  she  had  received  medical 
permission to take 20-minute rests during her pregnancy.  However, the fact that 
she  was  allowed  to  take  rests  does  not  by  itself  prove  that  the  two  instances 
referred to in the page 7 were necessarily allowed under her doctor’s orders.   

The disputed page 7 states that the poor performance at the xxxxxx 
that caused the applicant’s rating chain not to recommend her for advancement 
occurred  “[d]uring  the  marking  period”  of October  1,  1999,  to  March  31,  2000.  
The  applicant  alleged  that  the  disputed  page  7  should  be  removed  from  her 
record because the examples of poor performance cited occurred in August and 
September 1999, before the marking period began.  

 
3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 
6. 

The record indicates that the applicant worked at the xxxxxxx after 
she  became  pregnant  in  the  spring  of  1999  until  her  maternity  leave  began  on 
October 29, 1999.  After her return from maternity leave in February 2000, she 
was  temporarily  assigned  to  a  different  unit  for  the  remainder  of  the  marking 
period.    Therefore,  it  appears  that  the  applicant  worked  at  the  xxxxxxx  only 
during  the  first  month  of  the  marking  period,  October  1999.    However,  her 
superiors at the center continued to serve as her rating chain by preparing the 
EPEF and making the nonrecommendation for advancement. 

Although the applicant submitted no proof that she was removed 
from the xxxx rotation in August 1999 and that her application for recruiter duty 
was  disapproved  in  September  1999,  before  the  marking  period  began,  her 
allegations seem credible.  Under ALCGENL 048/99, applications for recruiting 
duty had to be submitted by September 1, 1999.  Furthermore, the page 7 indi-
cates  that  her  absorption  in  applying  for  recruiter  duty  occurred  after  she  was 
removed from the xxxx rotation.  Because the deadline for applying for recruiting 
duty was September 1, 1999, this statement strongly supports her contention that 
she was removed from the xxxx rotation in August.  Therefore, the Board finds 
that  the  applicant  has  proved  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  the 
comments concerning her poor performance on the xxxx watch and her absorp-
tion  with  applying  for  recruiter  duty  referred  to  her  performance  prior  to  the 
beginning of the new marking period on October 1, 1999. 

The applicant alleged that it was erroneous and unjust for the page 
7 to refer to her performance during the previous marking period.  However, no 
regulation requires a rating chain to base its recommendation for advancement 
solely on the member’s performance during the marking period.  Under Article 
10.B.7.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  a  rating  chain  should  base  its  decision  about 
whether to recommend a member for advancement on the member’s past per-
formance  and  ability  to  perform  the  duties  of  the  next  higher  pay  grade.    The 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2000-137                                                      p. 7 

7. 

page  7  documenting  a  nonrecommendation  must  cite  reasons  for  the  rating 
chain’s decision. 
 

The applicant has not proved that it was either erroneous or unjust 
for her rating chain to base its decision regarding her advancement on her poor 
performance during the previous marking period.  Nor has she proved that any 
of the comments—other than the words “During the marking period”—are false.  
Therefore, the Board finds no reason to remove the disputed page 7, in its entire-
ty, from her record. 

The applicant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that 
the words “During the marking period” on the disputed page 7 are inaccurate 
because  they  erroneously  indicate  that  the  poor  performance  described  on  the 
page 7 occurred during the marking period October 1, 1999, to March 31, 2000.   

 
8. 

 
9. 

Accordingly,  the  Board  finds  that  partial  relief  should  be  granted 
by correcting the disputed page 7 by replacing the words “During the” with the 
words “In the previous.”  No other relief should be granted. 
 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

military record is granted in part as follows: 

 
The  page  7  entry  (CG-3307)  dated  April  5,  2000,  shall  be  corrected  by 
replacing the words “During the” at the beginning of the second sentence with 
the words “In the previous,” so that the sentence shall read as follows:  “In the 
previous  marking  period  [the  applicant]  briefly  stood  break-in  watches  in  the 
xxxxxx as we attempted to qualify her as a xxxx.” 

 
No other relief shall be granted. 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
James K. Augustine 

 

 

 
Coleman R. Sachs 

 

 

 

 

 
Edmund T. Sommer, Jr. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2000-137                                                      p. 8 

The  application  of  former  XXXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  her 

ORDER