DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2002-081 
 
XXXXXX, XXXXXX X. 
XXX XX XXXX, XXX 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
GARMON, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
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 April 2, 2002, upon the 
BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s request for correction. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

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

 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 

The applicant asked the Board to restore his rank to yeoman first class (pay grade 
E-6),  with  a  corresponding  adjustment  to  his  pay  and  allowances  for  time  lost;  to 
remove  from  his  record  all  enlisted  performance  evaluations  and  negative  page  7s 
dated from May 31, 19XX until the date the “Board returns a [f]avorable decision”; and 
to increase his assignment priority from “3” to “4” or in the alternative, to allow him to 
choose his next assignment from a “[s]hopping list within reason.” 

 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  unjustly  reduced  in  rank  from  yeoman  first 
class (YN1) to yeoman second class (YN2).  He alleged that while he held the position of 
YN1, his command sought to have him replaced with another YN1.   To that end, the 
applicant alleged, enlisted personnel management (EPM) advised his command that in 
order to obtain a replacement YN1, the applicant must be demoted, thereby making the 
YN1 position vacant for a replacement.   

 
The applicant alleged that on July 2, 19XX, his command permanently reduced 
his rank, for the purpose of bringing in another YN1 to replace him.  He alleged that the 
reduction  was  unjust  because  EPM  could  have  given  his  command  “other  options  or 
means to resolve the [command’s] issues with [the applicant].”  The applicant further 
alleged  that  prior  to  his  permanent  reduction  and  subsequent  transfer“,  [he]  did  not 
receive  evaluation[s]  by  yeoman  and/or  personnel  other  than  [his  assigned  cutter] 
members.” 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

On February 15, 19XX, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for four years.  

He was advanced to a yeoman third class (YN3) (paygrade E-4) on May 10, 19XX.    

 
On February 1, 19XX, the applicant received non-judicial punishment (NJP) from 
his commanding officer for unauthorized absence.  As punishment, he received a six-
month  suspended  reduction  in  pay  grade  to  E-3,  and  extra  duties  for  14  days.    The 
applicant  had  his  period  of  eligibility  for  his  first  Coast  Guard  good  conduct  award 
terminated  due  to  the  NJP  and  a  court  memorandum  was  entered  in  the  applicant’s 
service record documenting the receipt of NJP. 
 

On  November  2,  19XX,  a  negative  page  7  entry  on  his  marks  for  the  period 
ending  September  30,  19XX  was  made  in  the  applicant’s  service  record.    The  page  7 
states that he was counseled on the following factors and topics:  “team factor,” “work 
factor,” “leadership,” “representing the Coast Guard,” and “human factor.” 

 
On  January  16,  19XX,  the  applicant  was  counseled  as  to  his  unsatisfactory 
performance as a YN3.  His performance resulted in the disapproval of his request to 
participate in the March 19XX service wide exam.  A negative page 7 was entered into 
his service record stating that “[a]s reflective in [the applicant’s] semi-annual marks for 
the period ending 9/30/XX, [he was] marginal in [his] yeoman abilities and continually 
made  the  same  error  over  and  over.  …  Recently,  your  performance  has  improved 
significantly.   Continued improvement in your work and attitude commensurate with 
that of a petty officer will result in recommendation for advancement.”  

 
On March 1, 19XX, the applicant was advanced to a yeoman second class (YN2) 
(pay grade E-5).  On November 15, 19XX, he reenlisted for three years.  On February 16, 
19XX, he extended his enlistment agreement for one year in order to obligate service for 
transfer orders.  On September 16, 19XX, the applicant reenlisted for three years.     
 

On April 30, 19XX, the applicant had a favorable page 7 entered into his record 
for  being  assigned  a  mark  of  7  on  his  Enlisted  Performance  Evaluation  Form  (EPEF) 
dated  April  30,  19XX  in  the  following  dimensions:  “quality  of  work,”  “monitoring 

On May 31, 19XX, the applicant was assigned to a cutter to fill an independent 

work,” “using resources,” and “stamina.”  On June 1, 19XX, he was advanced to YN1, 
pay grade E-6.  On February 24, 19XX, the applicant reenlisted for three years. 
 
 
duty E-6 billet.   
 
 
By  memorandum  dated  September  27,  19XX,  the  applicant’s  executive  officer 
(XO) informed the supply officer (SUPPO) (apparently the applicant’s supervisor) that 
he  concurred  with  the  SUPPO’s  written  comments  and  performance  marks  on  the 
applicant,  as  they  “very  accurately  reflect  [the  applicant’s]  performance.”    The 
memorandum  detailed  that  the  XO  wanted  the  identification  of  “all  issues  of  poor 
performance for [the applicant] related to a [yeoman (YN)] practical factor.  Specifically, 
when  [the  applicant’s]  marks  [are]  due,  [the  XO  wanted]  administrative  remarks  to 
reference  YN1/E-6  practical  factors  and  then  state  performance.”    The  XO  concluded 
that  the  performance  results  were  to  be  the  focus  of  the  applicant’s  performance 
evaluation. 
 

On  November  30,  19XX,  the  applicant  had  a  negative  page  7  entered  into  his 
service  record,  which  assigned  marks  of  1  or  2  in  the  “professional/specialty 
knowledge,” “quality of work,” and “monitoring work” dimensions of his November 
30, 19XX EPEF.   He acknowledged receipt of this document on December 28, 19XX.  By 
letter dated January 10, 19XX, the applicant submitted an appeal to his November 30, 
19XX performance evaluation. 
 

On December 26, 19XX, a negative page 7 was entered into his record stating that 
he was a candidate for a reduction in rate by reason of incompetence per Article 5.C.38 
of  the  Personnel  Manual.    He  was  advised  that  he  had  three  months  from  the  date 
notified  (December  26,  19XX)  to  demonstrate  satisfactory  progress  and  meet  the 
requirements  of  Article  5.C.38  in  order  to  retain  his  present  rate.    He  was  further 
advised  that  failure  to  do  so  would  result  in  his  reduction  in  rate  to  YN2.    A  special 
performance evaluation would  be completed at the end of the three-month probation 
for the purpose of determining competency.  

 
On March 26, 19XX, a negative page 7 was  entered into the applicant’s record, 
which  states  that  his  three-month  observation  period  to  satisfy  the  requirements  of 
Article 5.C.38. of the Personnel Manual was complete and that he had been determined 
to be incompetent in the rate of YN1.  The required special evaluation was completed 
on this date as well.  It recommended that he be reduced in rate to YN2. 
 

On April 24, 19XX, a negative page 7 was entered into his record, which states 
that the entry was made for an “unsatisfactory” conduct mark due to low factor marks 
as defined in Article 10.B.9.a. of the Personnel Manual.  The applicant received a total 
factor mark of 18 in the performance factors, a total of 18 in the leadership factor, and a 

total of 18 in the professional qualities factor on his EPEF dated March 26, 19XX.  He 
was assigned a mark of not recommended due to incompetency and counseled on the 
steps necessary to earn a mark of recommended. 

 
On  April  30,  19XX,  the  applicant  was  assigned  marks  of  2  in  the  performance 
factors “professional/specialty knowledge,” “quality of work,” “monitoring work,” and 
“using resources” on his EPEF dated March 26, 19XX.  On May 21, 19XX, the applicant 
submitted a letter in appeal of his March 26, 19XX EPEF.  By memorandum dated June 
7,  19XX,  the  CO  forwarded  his  endorsement  to  the  applicant’s  March  26,  19XX  EPEF 
appeal.    In  his  endorsement,  the  CO  explained  the  marks  given  for  the  special 
evaluation  and  stated  that  “[he]  intend[s]  to  grant  [the  applicant’s]  request  for  an 
evaluation at another unit.” 

 
 On July 2, 19XX, the applicant was reduced in rate to YN2.  On August 31, 19XX, 

the applicant was transferred to a new Coast Guard station. 
 
 
 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  October  17,  2002,  the  Chief  Counsel  of  the  Coast  Guard  submitted  an 
advisory opinion to which he attached a memorandum on the case prepared by CGCP.  
In  concurring  with  CGCP’s  analysis,  the  Chief  Counsel  recommended  that  the  Board 
deny the applicant’s request for relief because the Coast Guard committed no error or 
injustice by reducing the applicant’s rate. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel argued that prior to the applicant’s reduction in rate, he was 
properly  counseled  that  he  would  be  evaluated  during  the  following  three-month 
period beginning on December 26, 19XX.   He argued that the applicant acknowledged 
the  notification  of  the  evaluation  period.    See  Page  7  dated  December  28,  19XX  and 
Article 5.C.38.c. of the Personnel Manual. 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  although  the  applicant’s  record  reveals  that  his 
 
command sought his transfer because of his incompetence, the command was advised 
that  personnel  transfers  based  on  incompetence  alone  did  not  satisfy  Coast  Guard 
policy.      He  asserted  that  the  command  was  instructed  to  document  the  applicant’s 
performance and follow the proper procedures for reducing the applicant’s grade if it 
appeared that the applicant was not performing at the level for which he was rated.  He 
argued  that  the  applicant’s  command  followed  Coast  Guard  policy,  accordingly,  and 
that  the  applicant  was  determined  to  be  incompetent  for  his  rate,  appropriately 
reduced, and subsequently transferred.  
 

 
The Chief Counsel argued that the applicant’s performance after his reduction in 
rate is irrelevant to the Board’s evaluation of this case.  He argued that the applicant’s 
EPEF dated January 31, 19XX, and a letter, dated June 12, 19XX, from his CO relate to 
the applicant’s performance after the documented incompetence that resulted in his rate 
reduction  and  therefore  are  irrelevant.    He  contended  that  because  the  applicant’s 
record  demonstrates that  he  is  capable  of  performing  well  when he  is  so  inclined,  no 
error  or  injustice  resulted  in  this  case  when  the  Coast  Guard  held  the  applicant 
accountable for his poor performance.  
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On October 21, 2002, the Chair sent a copy of the views of the Coast Guard to the 
applicant  and  invited  him  to  respond  within  15  days.    On  October  29,  2002,  the 
applicant responded to the Coast Guard’s advisory opinion. 
 
 
The  applicant  argued  that  his  November  30,  19XX  performance  evaluation 
demonstrates that his XO inappropriately influenced a junior officer (the SUPPO).  He 
argued that in a memorandum dated September 27, 19XX, his XO instructed the junior 
officer  to  provide  poor  performance  feedback  and  remarks  on  his  evaluation.    He 
contended that the XO’s action “clearly shows intent to discredit and unjustly evaluate 
[his] performance.” 
 
 
The  applicant  argued  that  contrary  to  the  actions  taken,  his  command  did  not 
have grounds to consider him a candidate for a reduction in rate.  He stated that under 
Article  10.B.2.b.6.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  individual  performance  standards  are 
grouped in blocks ranging from 2 to 7, which represent “factor areas.”  He argued that 
upon his calculation, his factor area scores for the evaluation period ending November 
30,  19XX  ranged  from  2.42  to  4.00,  yielding  an  average  of  2.86.    He  contended  that 
although his CO documented that he became a candidate for reduction “based on [his] 
receiving a factor average below 2 …,” he never should have been considered for a rate 
reduction for incompetence because he actually had no factor mark below 2. 
 
 
The applicant argued that CGPC’s memorandum, submitted in attachment to the 
Coast  Guard’s  advisory  opinion,  contains  numerous  errors  that  mischaracterize  his 
military  record.    He  argued  that regarding his  February  1,  1990 NJP,  he  was  charged 
with  “unauthorized  absence,”  not  being  absent  without  leave  (AWOL),  and  that  the 
punishment  associated  with  his  unauthorized  absence  was  a  suspended  reduction  in 
pay  that  was  imposed  but  not  effected.    With  respect  to  this  NJP,  the  applicant 
maintains  that  he  should  not  have  gone  to mast  for  poor  performance  because  at  the 
time of the offense, he had not been qualified to perform the job.  He also argued that 
between February 19XX and November 19XX, he received “only two negative [page 7s] 
….”    He  argued  that  contrary  to  the  Chief  Counsel’s  view,  his  record  shows  that  he 

received  more  than  “only  one  positive  [page  7]”.    He  contended  that  he  has  received 
numerous positive page 7s, medals, awards, and letters of appreciation for his work.   
 
The applicant alleged that there were substantial errors in the processing of his 
 
November 30, 19XX and March 26, 19XX evaluations.  He stated that in accordance with 
Article 10.B.10.b.1.d. of the Personnel Manual, he submitted an appeal to his November 
30,  19XX  evaluation  within  15  calendar  days.    He  stated  that  the  Coast  Guard 
regulations mandate that his CO endorse and submit his appeal to the appeal authority 
within  15  days  of  receiving  it,  and  that  the  appeal  authority  must  review  and  take 
action within 15 days of receiving the same.  He alleged that although his CO endorsed 
his  appeal  on  February  9,  19XX  (31  days  after  receiving  it),  and  the  appeal  authority 
endorsed  his  appeal  on  March  9,  19XX  (25  days  after  its  receipt),  no  corresponding 
delay in the start of his new evaluation period was made.  He argued that had the entire 
evaluation process been completed, prior to “moving to the next step,” the earliest he 
could have been placed on the three-month evaluation for rate reduction was March 10, 
19XX. 
 
 
The applicant argued that action taken by his CO and the appeal authority on his 
March 26, 19XX performance evaluation similarly fell outside the time requirements of 
Coast Guard regulations.  He alleged that although he timely appealed his March 26, 
19XX  performance  evaluation,  his  CO  took  action  18  days  after  he  received  the 
applicant’s appeal, and the appeal authority took action 20 days after its receipt of the 
same.  The applicant argued that because both his CO and the appeal authority failed to 
meet  their  respective  15-day  deadlines,  any  additional  action  should  also  have  been 
delayed.  He argued that had the foregoing delays been taken into account, the earliest 
date  on  which  his  CO  could  have  submitted  a  letter  recommending  the  applicant’s 
reduction  in  rate  would  have  been  June  27,  19XX.  The  applicant  asserted  that  his 
command “[sped] through” the entire process prior to the change of command in mid-
June  to ensure that the incoming CO would be unable to stop his rate reduction and 
unaware  of  the  XO’s  inappropriate  influence  on  the  applicant’s  November  19XX 
evaluation.    The  applicant  argued that  contrary to  his  command’s  actions,  “the  entire 
evaluation process is required to be completed before moving to the next step.”   

 
The applicant pointed out that in his appeal to the April 30, 19XX performance 
evaluation,  he  requested  an  evaluation  at  another  unit,  prior  to  effecting  any  rate 
reduction.  In response to this request, the applicant alleged that his CO indicated by 
memorandum  that  he  would  “grant  [the  applicant’s]  request  for  an  evaluation  at 
another  unit,”  but  took  action  to  the  contrary.    He  argued  that  in  granting  the 
applicant’s  request  for  evaluation  by  a  different  unit,  the  CO  obligated  himself  to 
providing  the  requested  performance  evaluation,  prior  to  effecting  the  applicant’s 
reduction  in  rate.    He  contended  that  the  CO’s  failure  to  provide  the  promised 
evaluation at a different unit demonstrates that the command to which he was assigned 
intended to unfairly judge his performance in an effort to have him replaced. 

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  according  to  the  CGPC’s  memorandum,  the  appeal 
authority’s resubmitted recommendation that the applicant be reduced in rate included 
a statement by the applicant, which subsequently could not be located.  He asserted that 
his statement could not be located because it had never been forwarded.  The applicant 
argued that the appeal authority’s letter dated July 2, 19XX, referencing only his CO’s 
letter, dated May 14, 19XX, clearly indicates that the letter was not forwarded.   

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  his  request  for  temporary  active  duty  (TAD)  on 
another cutter was denied even though other members aboard his assigned cutter were 
afforded that opportunity.  He argued that his XO did not allow him to go TAD because 
he would have been found fully competent.  Although the applicant primarily agreed 
with the Chief Counsel’s assertion that his performance after the reduction is irrelevant 
to  the  issue  currently  before  the  Board,  he  argued  that  such  subsequent  performance 
shows that he is capable of performing competently in a YN1 position aboard a Coast 
Guard cutter.  

 
Along  with  his  response, 

the  applicant  submitted  several  certificates, 
qualification,  designation,  and  course  completion  letters,  letters  of  appreciation, 
employee review summaries, honors, and awards that he earned during the course of 
his Coast Guard career.  

 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A) 
 
 
Article 5.C.38. sets forth the process for evaluating members who are considered 
for, among other reasons, a reduction in rate due to incompetence.  Article 5.C.38.c.1.a. 
mandates  that  “[t]he  reason  for  reduction  in  rate  must  be  solely  incompetence  as 
evidenced by the fact that the person is not qualified to perform the duties of his or her 
rate.”   
 

Article  5.C.38.c.2.  provides  that  “[i]f  an  individual’s  evaluation  mark  for  any 
factor  is  below  a  factor  average  of  2  for  any  evaluation  period,  …  the  commanding 
officer shall make [a page 7] entry in the Personnel Data Record [PDR] stating that the 
individual  is  a  candidate  for  reduction  in  rate  by  reason  of  incompetence  and  the 
following  three-month  period  will  constitute  a  formal  evaluation  of  his  or  her 
competency.”    At  the  end  of  the  three-month  period  of  probation,  the  member’s 
performance is reevaluated.  If during the three-month probation period, the member 
fails  to  show  the  level  of  professional  competency  required  for  the  his  or  her  rate,  a 
reduction in rate shall be recommended by the member’s command. 

 

Article  5.C.38.f.2.a.,  entitled  “Effective  Date  of  Reduction  Rate,”  provides  that 
“[w]hen  [the]  …  district  commander  authorizes  a  reduction  in  rate,  the  individual’s 
commanding officer will effect the reduction upon receipt of such authorization.” 
 

Article  10.B.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  governs  preparation  of  EPEFs.    Article 
10.B.1.b.  states  that  “[e]ach  commanding  officer  must  ensure  all  enlisted  members 
under their command receive accurate, fair, objective, and timely evaluations.”  Article 
10.B.4.d., entitled “The Rating Chain,” states that an enlisted member’s performance is 
assessed by a supervisor, a marking official, and an approving official.  Articles 10.B.3.e. 
and  10.B.3.f.  provide  that  the  supervisor  “[s]ubmits  the  appropriate  EPEF  …  with 
recommended evaluation marks to the Marking Official for each subordinate assigned,” 
and “[p]rovides written comments for any recommended marks of 1, 2, or 7 …”  The 
draft EPEF, along with written comments when required, are forwarded to the marking 
official not later than nine days before the end of evaluation period.   

 
Under  Article  10.B.4.c.,  the  marking  official  reviews  the  recommended  marks 
and “[d]iscusses any recommendation considered to be inaccurate or inconsistent with 
the member’s actual performance, paying special attention to recommended 1s, 2s, 7s, 
…  or  low  factor  marks.  …  The  Marking  Official  has  the  authority  to  return  the 
evaluation  form  to  the  Supervisor  for  further  justification  or  support  for  any  marks.”  
After  selecting  the  best  description  block  of  the  member’s  performance,  the  marking 
official assigns the final performance marks by filling in the appropriate spaces. 
 
Under  Article  10.B.5.a.1.,  members  in  pay  grade  E-6  receive  semiannual 
 
evaluations  at  the  end  of  each  May  and  November.    Article  10.B.5.b.4.d.  states  that 
special evaluations are to be completed at the end of a three-month probationary period 
for incompetency.   
 

Article 10.B.10.b.2.d. states that “[c]ommanding officers shall endorse and send 
the appeal letter to the Appeal Authority within 15 calendar days of receiving it from 
the member.”  Article 10.B.10.b.3.a. provides that the “[a]ppeal authority must review 
and act on the appeal within 15 calendar days after receiving it.” 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 
 
The  Board  makes  the  following  findings  and  conclusions  on  the  basis  of  the 
applicant's military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission, and appli-
cable law: 
 
 
§ 1552.  The application was timely. 
 

The  Board  has  jurisdiction  concerning  this  matter  pursuant  to  10  U.S.C. 

1. 

2. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  his  XO  instructed  a 

junior  officer  by  
memorandum dated September 27, 19XX to provide poor performance feedback on his 
November 30, 19XX EPEF.  The Board notes that the XO’s memorandum to the SUPPO 
fails  to  specifically  reference  the  applicant’s  November  30,  19XX  EPEF.    However, 
because the record shows that the applicant was assigned to a new cutter on May 31, 
19XX (the last day of his regularly scheduled semiannual evaluation period), the Board 
finds  that  the  September  27,  19XX  memorandum  and  the  references  made  therein 
related  to  the  applicant’s  performance  for  the  period  ending  November  30,  19XX.  
Personnel Manual, Article 10.B.5.a.1.  
 

3. 

Under  the  facts  presented,  the  applicant  has  not  proved  that  the  XO’s 
September 27, 19XX memorandum improperly influenced a supervising junior officer, 
and  thereby  the  results  of  the  applicant’s  November  30,  19XX  EPEF.    Article  10.B.4.c. 
provides that the marking official selects and assigns the final performance marks on a 
member’s EPEF.  In the applicant’s case, the XO, as the marking official, was charged 
with  this  duty.    Insofar  as  the  September  27,  19XX  memorandum  was  drafted  by  the 
same officer authorized to make final performance marks and comments, the applicant 
has  failed  to  prove  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  that  memorandum 
improperly influenced the applicant’s EPEF for the period ending November 30, 19XX. 
 

4. 

Furthermore, the record shows that on or prior to September 27, 19XX, the 
SUPPO submitted to the XO a draft EPEF with recommended performance marks and 
written comments in accordance with Article 1.B.4.d. of the Personnel Manual.  Under 
Article 10.B.4.c., the XO, as the marking official, reviewed the recommended marks and 
written comments for inconsistencies between the marks and comments suggested by 
the supervisor and the applicant’s actual performance.  The XO’s September 27, 19XX, 
memorandum indicates that in response to the SUPPO’s draft marks and comments, the 
XO “concur[red] with [the SUPPO’s] written comments and marks,” and felt that “the 
marks  and  comments  very  accurately  reflect  performance.”    The  September  27,  19XX 
memorandum also indicates that the XO required the SUPPO to identify “all issues of 
poor  performance  for  YN1  related  to  a  YN  practical  factor,”  and  specifically  to  have 
“administrative  remarks  to  reference  YN1/E-6  practical  factor  and  then  state 
performance.”    Article  10.B.4.c.  grants  the  marking official  the  authority  to return  the 
evaluation form to the supervisor for “further justification or support for any marks.”  
The Board finds that the applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence 
that  the  XO’s  request  of  the  SUPPO  fell  outside  the  purview  of  seeking  “further 
justification or support” for the marks given. 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  his  command  erred  in  taking  subsequent 
administrative  action  on  his  performance  evaluations  when  the  appeals  against  those 
performance  evaluations  had  not  been  completed.    However,  no  provision  in  the 
Personnel Manual states that a member’s appeal of an EPEF operates as a stay of further 
administrative action.  Moreover, in accordance with Article 5.C.38.c.2. of the Personnel 

5. 

6. 

Manual, the applicant’s command advised him that he was a candidate for reduction in 
rate by reason of incompetency and that the following three months from the date of his 
notification would constitute a formal evaluation period of his competency.  Contrary to 
the applicant’s allegation, there are no provisions that would require his command to 
stay the start of his three-month probation merely because he appealed his November 
30, 19XX EPEF.  Article 10.B.5.b.4.d. similarly provides that special evaluations are to be 
completed at the end of a three-month probationary period for incompetency with no 
provisions  for  appeal  stays.    Thus,  the  Board  finds  that  the  applicant  has  not  proved 
that his command committed any error or injustice by proceeding in accordance with 
Articles 10.B.5.b.4.d and 5.C.38.c.2. to complete a special evaluation and recommend his 
rate reduction, despite his appeals.   
 
 
By  memorandum  dated  June  7,  19XX,  the  applicant’s  CO  indicated, 
among  other  things,  that  he  intended  to  “grant  [the  applicant’s]  request  for  an 
evaluation  at  another  unit.”    The  applicant  alleged  that  had  the  CO  allowed  him  to 
perform and thereby receive an evaluation for temporary active duty at another unit, he 
would  have  been  able  to  demonstrate  competency  for  his  rate.    Although  the  CO’s 
statement is unambiguous as to the CO’s intent, the statement by itself fails to support a 
finding that the applicant was entitled to receive an evaluation at a different unit during 
his probation or prior to the date of his reduction.  Consequently, the Board finds that 
the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the Coast Guard committed an 
error or injustice in not assigning him temporary active duty on another cutter. 
 
The applicant alleged that his CO and the appeal authority failed to take 
 
appropriate action within the time limits prescribed by the Personnel Manual regarding 
his  appeals  to  his  November  30,  19XX  and  March  26,  19XX  performance  evaluations.  
Articles  10.B.10.b.2.d.  and  10.B.10.b.3.a.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  contain  clear, 
mandatory  language  specifying  that,  when  a  member  submits  an  appeal,  unless  an 
extension is granted, the CO must endorse and forward the appeal within 15 days of 
receipt, while the appeal authority must review and act on an appeal within 15 days of 
receipt.  There is no evidence in the record that any extensions were granted nor is there 
evidence establishing the dates that the CO and appeal authority received either of the 
applicant’s appeals.  Upon the Board’s questioning about the command’s alleged delay 
in taking necessary action on the applicant’s performance evaluation appeals, the Chief 
Counsel stated that (a) he had no record of the November 19XX appeal, and (b) he had 
no record of the exact dates when the CO or appeal authority received the March 19XX 
appeal.  Therefore, the applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence 
that  action  on  his  appeals  occurred  more  than  15  days  after  their  receipt  by  the 
appropriate  authorities.    The  Board  strongly  encourages  the  Coast  Guard  to  fully 
comply  with  the  mandatory  provisions  of  the  foregoing  regulations  in  the  future  by 
maintaining thorough records.  Absent clear evidence of material error or injustice, the 
actions taken by the applicant’s command in addressing his performance should stand. 
 

7. 

8. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

ORDER 

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for the correction 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
of his military record is denied.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
Julia Andrews 

 

 

 
Gloria Hardiman-Tobin 

 

 

 

 
 
David H. Kasminoff