DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2004-019 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Deputy 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.  The application was received on October 31, 
2003,  and  docketed  on  November  3,  2003,  upon  the  Chair’s  determination  that  his 
application was complete. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

This final decision, dated August 19, 2004, is signed by the three duly appointed 

 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 

 

The  applicant,  a  chief  food  service  specialist  (FSC)  in  the  Reserve,  asked  the 
Board  to  remove  from  his  record  an  Enlisted  Performance  Evaluation  Form  (EPEF) 
covering his service from June 1 through October 12, 2000.  The EPEF contains very low 
marks, and his rating chain did not recommend him for advancement.1   

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard in 1973 and performed four years of 
active duty, during which he attended “A” School to join the FS rating.  Since his dis-
charge, he has remained a member of the Reserve, drilling and performing occasional 
short periods of temporary active duty and active duty for training.  He attended “C” 
School to learn the skills required of an FSC.  By the mid 1990s, he had advanced to FSC 

                                                 
1    Enlisted  members  are  evaluated  by  a  rating  chain,  which  consists  of  a  Supervisor,  who recommends 
evaluation marks; a Marking Official, who assigns the marks; and an Approving Official (usually the CO), 
who approves the EPEF.  All three members of the rating chain also indicate on the EPEF whether they 
recommend the member for advancement to the next pay grade.  A member cannot be advanced if his 
Approving Official does not recommend it.  Personnel Manual, Article 10.B.4.d. 

and was earning marks of 4, 5, and 6 on his EPEFs.2   He was also recommended for 
advancement on the EPEFs.  From December 21, 1995, through January 31, 2001, he was 
assigned to Group Charleston.  On his first EPEF at the Group, covering his work from 
August 19, 1995, through May 31, 1997, he received eighteen marks of 4 and six marks 
of 5 in the various performance categories and was recommended for advancement. On 
the  applicant’s  second  EPEF,  covering  his  work  from  June  1,  1997,  through  May  31, 
1999, however, he received twelve marks of 3 and twelve marks of 4 in the performance 
categories, and he was not recommended for advancement. 

 
On  the  applicant’s  EPEF  for  the  period  June  1,  1999, through May 31, 2000, he 
received eleven marks of 3 and thirteen marks of 4 in the performance categories, and 
he was not recommended for advancement.  On May 31, 2000, his commanding officer 
(CO) entered an Administrative Remarks (“page 7”) in his record to document the lack 
of  recommendation  for  advancement  with  the  following  text,  which  the  applicant 
acknowledged with his signature: 

 
[The applicant was] assigned mark of NOT RECOMMENDED for the annual evaluation 
period ending 31 May 2000 due to the reasons set forth below.  [He] has been counseled 
on the steps necessary to earn a mark of recommended. 
 
UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE:  [The applicant] was informed that for the previ-
ous  24  months  his  performance  has  been  unsatisfactory compared to peers of the same 
pay  grade.    [He]  is  now  placed  on  performance  probation.    [He]  is  to  take  stock  of  his 
actions that have caused this situation to develop and take corrective action.  He will be 
coached  through  this  process  and  performance  must  improve  within  the  next  twelve 
months.    Absent  improvement,  we  will  take  the  necessary  steps  to  transfer  him  to  the 
[Individual Ready Reserve (IRR)]. 
 
There  are  several  reasons  why  [the  applicant]  was  not  recommended  for  advancement 
and is being placed on performance probation.  [He] has shown an overall lack of food 
service operations proficiency and productivity and a reluctance to lead and direct work 
that must be accomplished.  His quality of work is poor or marginal.  Weekend cleaning 
lists were not adequately completed.  He is not familiar with galley standard operating 
procedures  and  required  routine  paperwork.    [He]  has  had  difficulty  completing  daily 
ration  memos  and  had  had  problems  producing  meals  by  himself,  or  supervising  meal 
production, in the allowed time.  Meals are not completed/ready at the scheduled time.  
For  his  pay  grade  and  years  of  experience,  he  has  demonstrated  a  lack  of  routine  food 
service skills and knowledge he should now possess.  [He] shall learn galley food prepa-
ration and operating procedures, become familiar or re-learn required CG Dining Facility 
paperwork,  work  together  and  effectively  communicate  weaknesses  with  the  FSO  and 
galley  personnel,  agree  to  a  timeline  and  write  down  and  set  improvement  goals  to 
improve  written  and  oral  communication  skills.    [His]  deportment  lacks  the  expected 
consistency and confidence of a Chief Petty Officer.  [He] must put effort in his military 
bearing and appearance.  Grooming and uniform appearance must be to standards; get a 
haircut & trim and come to work in a clean, ironed and sharp uniform – provide a good 
example  to  our  junior  personnel.  We expect [him] to look good, direct and orchestrate 
and accomplish each and every task that an FSC must see done for weekend work at the 
galley.  [He was] notified that he may make a written rebuttal statement regarding this 

                                                 
2  Members are rated on a scale of 1 to 7 in various performance categories, with 7 being best. 

performance probation, provided such rebuttal is delivered to me no later than 60 days 
from his acknowledgment of witnessed refusal to sign. 
 
On October 12, 2000, the applicant’s rating chain prepared the disputed proba-
tionary  EPEF  pursuant  to  his  pending  transfer  to  another  unit.    On  this  EPEF,  he 
received five marks of 2 in the categories “Setting an Example,” “Adaptability,” “Pro-
fessional/Specialty  Knowledge,”  “Professional  Development,”  and  “Administrative 
Ability”;  seven  marks  of  3  for  “Developing  Subordinates,”  “Evaluations,”  “Organiza-
tion,” “Using Resources,” “Monitoring Work,” “Communicating,” and “Military Bear-
ing”;  and  twelve  marks  of  4;  and  he  was  not  recommended  for  advancement.    To 
explain the marks of 2, the unit’s Supply Officer, who was the applicant’s supervisor, 
prepared a page 7 with the following text, which was acknowledged by the applicant: 

 
12OCT00:  Assigned mark of 2 in the Setting an Example dimension of Enlisted Perform-
ance Evaluation Form CG-3788 dated 9 October, 2000.  [The applicant] has demonstrated 
little motivation to seek opportunities to make decisions and recommendations.  He has 
shown  poor  judgment  in  waiting  too  long  to  complete  tasks  assigned  or  following 
through  with  giving  direction  to  subordinates.    [He]  seldom  shows  any  initiative  and 
generally waits until given further instruction on what to do next.  On a number of occa-
sions, while responsible for running the Galley, [he] left the cash box out too long after 
lunch. 
 
Assigned  mark  of  2  in  the  Adaptability  dimension  of  Enlisted  Performance  Evaluation 
Form CG-3788 dated 9 October, 2000.  During [the applicant’s] two weeks annual train-
ing, he had a very difficult time assuming the responsibility of managing the Galley.  He 
was easily confused and unable to follow through with routine tasks such as ensuring the 
duty  cook  had  checked  the  refrigerator  and  freezer  temperature  levels.    [He]  required 
continual supervision just to complete routine duties. 
 
Assigned mark of 2 in the Professional/Specialty Knowledge dimension of Enlisted Per-
formance Evaluation Form CG-3788 dated 9 October, 2000.  [The applicant] demonstrated 
the  proficiency  level  of  a  FS3  or  FS2  not  a  FSC.    He  required  constant  reminders  and 
training  just  to  complete  minimum  tasks  expected  of  a  FSC.    [He]  was  shown  how  to 
complete the daily Dining Facility paperwork.  Each daily report submitted by [him] con-
tained minor errors that would have made balancing the month very difficult.  [He] was 
also tasked with performing the monthly inventory.  The errors made by him during this 
inventory added up to over $400.00. 
 
Assigned mark of 2 in the Professional Development dimension of Enlisted Performance 
Evaluation Form CG-3788 dated 9 October, 2000.  As a Foodservice Specialist Chief, [he] 
failed  to  actively  seek  out  what  he  needed  to  do  to  improve  his  knowledge  and  skills.  
Although he was counseled every day, [he] failed to make needed corrections in the per-
formance of his duties. 
 
Assigned  mark  of  2  in  the  Administrative  Ability  dimension  of  Enlisted  Performance 
Evaluation Form CG-3788 dated 9 October, 2000.  [The applicant] was unable to complete 
required reports such as the Coast Guard Dining Facility Operating Statement.  In addi-
tion, written reports lacked clarity and contained several grammatical errors.  The reports 
submitted by [him] required constant oversight and review to ensure they were accurate 
and complete. 
 

The applicant’s CO also prepared a page 7, which the applicant acknowledged, 

to document the lack of recommendation for advancement with the following text: 

 
[The applicant was] marked NOT RECOMMENDED in the Advancement section of his 
enlisted performance evaluation dated 12 October 2000.  The assigned marks of 2 in the 
following  dimensions  of  Setting  an  Example,  Adaptability,  Professional  and  Specialty 
Knowledge,  Professional  Development,  and  Administrative  Ability  have  been  well 
documented.  [He] has been fully counseled regarding the steps he must take to earn an 
advancement recommendation. 
 
On an administrative entry dated 31 May 2000, [he] was placed on an unsatisfactory per-
formance  probation.    Two  drill  periods  and  Annual  Training  for  two  weeks  [were] 
arranged  to  discuss  performance  development  and  to  shore  up  weaknesses.    Unfortu-
nately, this evaluation has uncovered additional areas where performance must improve, 
as documented.  This evaluation reports that performance has become worse and I cau-
tion [him] that he may well be a candidate for reduction in grade due to incompetency.  
[He]  is  to  review  5.C.38.c.  –  Reduction  for  Incompetence,  CG  Personnel  Manual, 
COMDTINST M1000.6A. 
 
[The  applicant]  is  afforded  an  opportunity  to  submit  a  rebuttal  to  this  documentation 
provided it is delivered to me no later than 60 days from his dated acknowledgement or 
witnessed refusal to sign. 
 
After receiving the Probationary EPEF, the applicant was transferred to the IRR. 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
The applicant alleged that on March 31, 1999, another member of his unit, FS1, 
made false allegations about him in a memorandum to the Supply Officer.  The appli-
cant submitted a copy of this memorandum (see below), which is not part of his per-
sonnel  record.    The  applicant  alleged  that  the  page  7  dated  May  31,  2000,  and  the 
decision  to  put  him  on  probation  were  based  on  the  same  incorrect  information.    He 
alleged that prior to being placed on performance probation, he was not aware that he 
had  received  unsatisfactory  performance  marks  for  the  prior  two-year  evaluation 
period because he was never given a copy of his EPEF.  He alleged that he was allowed 
to take the Service-Wide Examinations (SWEs) for advancement in 1997 and 1998, but 
his tests were never scored. 

 
The applicant alleged that the mark of 2 that he received for “Setting an Exam-
ple”  on  the  disputed  EPEF  was  unjust.    He  stated  that  he  was  very  cautious  in  his 
actions and decision-making during the evaluation period because he was on probation, 
but  he  was  never  apathetic.    He alleged that there were many changes to the routine 
during  the  period,  but  that  he  took  all  of  them  in  stride.    The  applicant  alleged  that, 
although he was accused of having been careless with the lunch cash box, he never lost 
any funds and kept the box within his sight at all times.  He stated that, although it was 
difficult, he always tried to project a positive and enthusiastic attitude. 

 

The applicant alleged that during his probation, he was placed in charge of the 
galley for two weeks but given very little instruction or guidance.  He stated that, pre-
viously, he had only been in charge of the galley for weekend drills and had worked in 
support roles, such as day worker, watchstander, and relief worker in the aftermath of 
hurricanes.  Regarding the paperwork, the applicant stated that he had always handled 
food  preparation  and  serving  and  had  not  been  in  charge  of  the  paperwork,  record-
keeping, or report or menu preparation.  He stated that he had done some paperwork 
in the past on paper but had never had to do any on a computer before.  He alleged that 
standard practice was that only the senior member of the rate worked in the office and 
that  junior  personnel,  and  especially  reservists,  worked  at  “getting  the  crew  fed” 
because  regulars  were  “wary  of  reservists  having  anything  to  do  involving  records.”  
He alleged that during his two-week period of active duty for training (ADT), both the 
Food Service Officer (FSO) and the senior FS had access to the office computer, which 
limited what he could accomplish.   

 
Regarding the mark of 2 for “Adaptability,” the applicant stated that, because the 
ADT lasted for only two weeks, he could not make many decisions “as it wasn’t [his] 
shop” and he was “working under an awkward situation” in another man’s space.  He 
stated  that  he  is  used  to  filling  temporary  assignments,  such  as  stepping  in  to  cook 
when a boat was missing an FS, and did not have any opportunities to add or change 
policies,  but  that  when  he received written or oral feedback, he would make changes 
immediately.  He alleged that he met the mission of feeding the crews during the ADT. 

 
Regarding the mark of 2 for “Professional/Specialty Knowledge,” the applicant 
noted  that  the  period  of  ADT  was  the  first  time  he  was  ever  tasked  with  the  overall 
management  of  the  entire  galley  and  that  it  should  have  been  considered  a  training 
time,  rather  than  an  evaluation  time.    However,  he  alleged,  his  command  was  more 
interested in processing him out of the Service than in giving him a reasonable amount 
of  time  to  train  and  learn  the  work.    He  submitted  a  copy  of  a  training  plan  he  was 
given  (see  below).    He  pointed out that in prior evaluation periods he had served on 
small vessels or stations and that for “years, [he was] the senior reserve FS, successfully 
holding  down  a  reserve  FSC  billet  supervising  several  people  on  reserve  weekend 
drills, while serving over a hundred people” and that his concern had always been to 
get the crew fed, and he had “never had anything to do with the administrative side of 
the  rate,  such  as  ordering  stores,  drawing  up  menus  or  any  of  the  record  keeping.”  
Regarding the $400 inventory error, he stated that he was not aware of the error until he 
saw the page 7.  He stated that he performed the inventory near the end of the month, 
but not at the end of the month, so he did not know if anything “was charged out of 
stores.”  He further stated that although he had assisted with inventories in the past, he 
had never been in charge of an inventory of someone else’s stores. 

 
Regarding  the  comment  about  his  needing  constant  reminders,  the  applicant 
stated that he received only a short training on the computer and felt rushed whenever 
he was trying to work on it because others needed it.  He alleged that the trainer, the 
FS1, trained him only for brief periods and seemed resentful that he had to do so.  The 

applicant alleged that he had had no problems with paperwork until he had to do it on 
a computer.  When he had attended “A” and “C” School years before, he was trained to 
do all of the FS “paperwork“ on paper, not on a computer. 

 
The applicant alleged that when he learned that the duty cook was not checking 
the temperature levels in the refrigerator and freezer, he “reminded him to do so along 
with [the] consequences of such action” regarding spoilage and loss.  He alleged that he 
had “never lost stores.”  

 
Regarding the mark of 2 for “Professional Development,” the applicant alleged 
that the mark is unfair because every year during his ADT he would read through all of 
the manuals for his rate and he would read them all again prior to each SWE.  In addi-
tion, he stated that he held study group sessions with fellow FS petty officers by coming 
in early before drills started.  He further stated that, during his ADT during the proba-
tionary  period,  he  spent  much  of  his  time  studying  manuals  and  food service-related 
publications  because  other  senior  FSes  would  be  working  in  the  office  and  there  was 
always a duty FS standing watch in the galley.  He stated that once during the ADT, 
when  he  was  asked  to  give  a  lecture  on  nutrition,  he  not  only  consulted  the  service 
manuals, but also the source material that the manuals were based on, publications at 
his local library, and a college text book. 

 
The applicant alleged that every day during the ADT he received counseling in 
the form of a page 7 from the FSO and that he would immediately correct any errors or 
shortcomings noted on the page 7s.  He alleged that the goal of the ADT was to enable 
him to fill in when the FSO went on leave and that the ADT would have gone well if the 
FSO  had  showed  him  how  he  wanted  the  galley  run.    He  alleged  that  he  had  no 
problems  getting  the  meals  prepared  and  served  and  that  he  could  have  successfully 
filled in for the FSO by working late to complete the administrative work at night.   

 
Regarding the mark of 2 for “Administrative Ability,” the applicant alleged that 
the comment that he “was unable to complete required reports such as the Coast Guard 
Dining  Facility  Operating  Statement”  is  unfair  because  he  was  only  on  ADT  for  two 
weeks and “would need to come in before ADT started at the beginning of the month 
and after the end of the month to complete the monthly Dining Facility Operating State-
ment.”  He stated that when he tried to do such work on the computer, he always felt 
rushed and had insufficient time to notice and correct his errors before others noticed 
them.  Moreover, he alleged, he never knew that his work had grammatical and clarity 
problems until he saw the page 7 dated October 12, 2000. 

 
The applicant alleged that the mark of 3 he received for “Organization” was also 
unfair because he provided his supervisor with accurate reports and planned meals and 
ensured  that  they  were  prepared  and  served  in  a  timely  and  appetizing  way,  which 
would not have been possible if he were not well organized.  He alleged that he always 
served meals on time unless there was a power or equipment failure or a “last minute 

change in operation plans” and that he knew how to prioritize work and to change pri-
orities when necessary. 

 
The applicant alleged that the mark of 3 he received for “Using Resources” was 
unfair because he always made good use of available personnel, equipment, materials, 
and  publications;  did  not  waste  anything;  and  delegated  tasks  to  the  lowest  practical 
level, following up as necessary to ensure completion. 

 
The applicant alleged that the mark of 3 he received for “Monitoring Work” was 
unfair because he monitored work to ensure that it was in progress and made sure that 
assigned tasks with deadlines were completed on time.  He alleged that he did so with-
out being overbearing. 

 
The applicant alleged that the mark of 3 he received for “Communicating” was 
unfair because the presentation that he made on nutrition was attended by the duty FS 
and the mess cook and that all other communications were “person to person or to a 
group of just two or three.”  He stated that he has rarely had a chance to do any public 
speaking and so is inexperienced in this area. 

 
The applicant alleged that the mark of 3 he received for “Military Bearing” was 
unfair because he made every effort to present a proper appearance while on probation.  
He alleged that prior to the ADT, he got a haircut and went “over his work uniforms to 
ensure the newest look possible.”  However, because he worked in a kitchen with food, 
oil, grease, and leaky garbage bags, it was very difficult to keep his uniform clean. 

 
The applicant alleged that he had no chance to appeal the EPEF because he was 
transferred to another unit in November 2000.  He alleged that he discovered the error 
in his record on October 29, 2000.  He alleged that, since his placement on the IRR, he 
has sought reassignment to no avail. 

 

Memorandum from FS1 to Supply Officer dated March 31, 1999 

 
The applicant submitted a copy of a memorandum dated March 31, 1999, from 
FS1, then the senior regular FS at the Group to the Supply Officer.  The applicant stated 
that he did not receive a copy of the memorandum until the summer of 2000, when he 
was placed on probation.  The memorandum explains the low marks that the FS1 was 
recommending for the applicant, presumably for the EPEF that covered his work from 
June 1, 1997, through May 31, 1999.  The memorandum appears as follows: 

 
DIRECTING  OTHERS:  giving  mark  of  3  because  he  has  shown  little or no leadership 
and direction of his subordinates.  He shows no support or disapproval of other’s work.  
He appears confused under stress and occasionally makes himself unavailable in such 
situations. 
 
WORKING WITH OTHERS:  giving mark of 3 due to his inability to communicate with 
others in a working environment.  When arguments occur between others, he takes no 

part in stopping the disagreement or in helping it come to a pleasant solution.  He sim-
ply ignores it. 
 
DEVELOPING  SUBORDINATES:    giving  a  mark  of  3 because he doesn’t assist in the 
education  of  others  for  promotion  or  in  preparation  of  meals.    He  rarely  criticizes  or 
compliments the work of other cooks. 
 
RESPONSIBILITY:    giving  mark  of  3  because  he  rarely  accepts  responsibility  for  his 
errors and gives excuses.  He shows no regard for Coast Guard rules and regulations 
and rarely tells others to do so. 
 
EVALUATIONS:    giving  mark  of  3  because  he  has  done  little  to  mark  or  counsel  his 
subordinates. 
 
SETTING  AN  EXAMPLE:    giving  mark  of  3  because  he  showed  up  late  from  time  to 
time, appeared disheveled and uninterested in work on many occasions. 
 
PROFESSIONAL/SPECIALTY KNOWLEDGE:  giving mark of 3 because he takes long 
periods to complete simple tasks and is unsuccessful at finishing them most of the time.  
He cannot be relied on to cook meals alone. 
 
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT:  giving mark of 3 because he showed no desire to 
learn more “on the job training”.  He chose to learn “book” knowledge only. 
 
ADMINISTRATIVE ABILITY:  giving mark of 3 because he rarely does any paperwork 
or reports on personnel or for galley work.  He avoids all such work in most cases. 
 
ORGANIZATION:  giving mark of 3 because he has no organizational skills.  He creates 
a  messy  atmosphere  in  the  galley  when  asked  to  prepare  a  meal.    He  also  loses 
paperwork and important documents on occasion. 
 
USING  RESOURCES:    giving  mark  of  3  because  he  improperly  stores  and  uses  food 
products causing spoilage.  He doesn’t delegate, he simply accepts what others choose 
to do.  It takes him entirely too long to complete simple cooking tasks. 
 
MONITORING WORK:  giving mark of 3 because he is unable to cook a meal without 
the help or direction of another. 
 
STAMINA:  giving mark of 3 because he chooses not to take part in the preparation of 
the meals or paperwork, instead he chooses to relax. 
 
COMMUNICATING:  giving mark of 3 because he rarely listens to all of what others 
say  and  then  taking  things  out of context thereby causing disagreements.  He doesn’t 
seem to say what he wants to half of the time and he shies from all conflicts. 
 

Training Plan 

 
The applicant submitted a copy of a training plan for his probationary period.  It 
indicates  that  during  his  ADT,  he  was  expected  to  bake  two  kinds  of  bread  in  accor-
dance with regulations; prepare two meals without help or supervision; secure the gal-
ley in the evening and supervise the mess attendant in doing so at least once; conduct 
an inventory and compare his findings with stock records, thereby identifying overage 

or  shortages;  collect,  account,  and  transmit  collections  for  sales  of  meals;  work  as  the 
Mess  Deck  Master  at  Arms  in  accordance  with  regulations;  and  complete  software 
training with the help of another FSC.  The plan also called for him to give a presenta-
tion on basic nutrition in September 2000 and to give other presentations and perform 
other work in the months after which he was transferred from the unit. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On April 1, 2004, the Judge Advocate General (TJAG) of the Coast Guard submit-

 
 
ted an advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny the applicant’s request.   
 
 
TJAG argued that the Board should deny relief because the applicant failed to file 
his application within three years of the date he discovered it.   He pointed out that the 
applicant alleged that he learned of the disputed EPEF on October 29, 2000, and that he 
apparently  signed  his  application  form,  DD  149,  on  October  26,  2003,  but  it  was  not 
received by the Board until October 31, 2003. 
 
 
TJAG  further  argued  that  the  applicant  has  not  shown  why  it  would  be  in the 
interest of justice for the Board to waive the statute of limitations.3  He pointed out that 
the applicant provided no justification for his delay in filing his application.  In addi-
tion, he stated that a cursory review of the merits of the case indicates that the applicant 
“failed  to  exhaust  his  administrative  remedies  and  offers  no  evidence  of  any  error  or 
injustice.”    He  argued  that  the  applicant’s  claim  that  he  could  not  appeal  the  EPEF 
because he was transferred lacks merit.  He alleged that the applicant’s statements “for 
the  most  part  support  the  low  marks  he  received  and  merely  seek  to  explain  why  his 
performance was substandard.”  Therefore, TJAG argued, the Board should not waive 
the statute of limitations. 
 
 
TJAG also argued that the applicant “is estopped from alleging error or injustice 
regarding his disputed [EPEF] where he has failed to perfect an appeal of those marks.”  
He alleged that the applicant “made a conscious decision not to appeal his marks” and 
that the Personnel Manual “provides specific instructions on how to submit an appeal 
in the event the member has been reassigned.  By reviewing the application of one who 
has  failed  to make use of an established appeals process, the Board would effectively 
eviscerate the regulatory scheme implemented by Article 10 [of the Personnel Manual].”  
TJAG also alleged that, “in the absence of a completed appeal, it is submitted that the 
Board  is  without  proper  jurisdiction  to  consider  this  application.”    In  addition,  he 
alleged  that  the  Board  “should  deem  any  issue  not  raised  through  this  process  to  be 
waived, absent proof of compelling circumstances that prevented Applicant from rais-
ing such issues within the service’s EPEF appeal system.” 
 
                                                 
3 Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), the Board may waive the three-year statute of limitations if it is in the 
interest of justice to do so.  Before determining that it is not in the interest of justice to waive the statute of 
limitations, the Board should conduct a cursory review of the merits of the case and consider the reasons 
for the delay.  Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164 (D.D.C. 1992). 

Regarding the merits of the case, TJAG argued that the applicant failed to meet 
 
his  burden  of  proof  by  providing  any  evidence  to  substantiate  his  claim.    He  alleged 
that “the only evidence [the applicant] offers is his self-serving, uncorroborated allega-
tion that his marks were somehow unfair.”  He argued that the applicant’s own, better 
opinion  of  his  performance  “is  insufficient  as  a  matter  of  law  to overcome the strong 
presumption of regularity afforded her [sic] military superiors.” Arens v. United States, 
969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979). 
 

TJAG based his recommendation in part on a memorandum on the case prepared 
by  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC).    CGPC  argued  that  most  of  the 
applicant’s statements “exemplify [his] inability to demonstrate the performance quali-
fications required of a Chief Food Service Specialist as established by the Enlisted Per-
formance  Qualifications  Manual,  COMDTINST  M1414.8  (series).”    CGPC  argued  that 
the  applicant  has  not  overcome  the  presumption  of  regularity  accorded  Coast  Guard 
records. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On April 5, 2004, the BCMR sent copies of the Judge Advocate General’s advi-
sory  opinion  and  CGPC’s  memorandum  to  the  applicant  and  invited  him  to  respond 
within 30 days.  The applicant requested an extension and submitted his response on 
June 4, 2004. 

 
In  response  to  TJAG’s  arguments  about  the  timeliness  of  his  application,  the 
applicant submitted a copy of a Priority Mail Service receipt from the U.S. Post Office 
dated  October  28,  2003.    In  addition,  he  argued  that  his  last  contact  with  the  Group 
command was in November 2000. 

 
The  applicant  stated  that  after  signing  the  disputed  EPEF,  he  met  with  his  CO 
and Executive Officer and was told that his options were to retire, to transfer to the IRR, 
or to be reduced in grade.  No one mentioned that he could appeal his marks, and no 
one advised him of how he could regain his command’s recommendation for advance-
ment.  He alleged that a Mr. W encouraged him to retire and that he was given papers 
showing that it would cost $3,000 to hold a reduction-in-grade hearing.  After a meeting 
with the Senior Enlisted Advisor, he signed papers to be transferred to the IRR.  When 
he  called  the  Group,  he  was  informed  repeatedly  by  Mr.  W  that  he  was  no  longer  a 
member of the Group.  He alleged that sometime later, he called a yeoman in “the sec-
tion that handles records” at the Group, asked how to appeal his marks, and was told 
that he should apply to the BCMR and had three years to do so.  The applicant alleged 
that  he  had  no  idea  that  he  had  a  right  to  appeal  the  EPEF  even  though  he  was  no 
longer assigned to the Group until he received the Coast Guard’s advisory opinion.  He 
alleged that he did appeal the marks he received at the end of May 2000, when he was 
put  on  probation,  and  would  have  appealed  his  October  12,  2000,  marks  if  he  had 
known that he could. 

 

The  applicant  alleged  that  whenever  he  called  to  ask  about  a  reassignment, 
someone  would  refer  to  Mr.  W.    He  alleged  that  his  command  and  Mr.  W  had  “poi-
son[ed] the well for future reassignment.”  He alleged that after September 11, 2001, he 
called and emailed the Reserve to ask for an assignment but received no response. 

 
Regarding the merits of his case, the applicant repeated most of the arguments 
made in his application and added a few more details.  He also pointed out that because 
he  was  a  reservist,  his  CO  had  little  direct  contact  with  him  and  had  to  rely  on  the 
reports of others.  He stated that the FS1 who wrote the memorandum about his per-
formance dated March 31, 1999, was only the senior FS for a few months and was rarely 
around  on  weekends  to  observe  his  performance.    He  alleged  that  the  FS1  recom-
mended that he receive low marks in areas, such as paperwork, in which the FS1 him-
self was supposed to train the applicant but failed to do so.   

 
The applicant repeated his allegations that he never saw the low marks that are 
in his record for the evaluation period ending on May 31, 1999, and that he received no 
training  on  how  to  be  in  charge  of  the  galley  until  he  was  required  to  do  it  without 
training during his ADT on probation.  He alleged that the only computer training he 
had ever received in the reserves was “one or two half-hour sessions.”  He stated that 
although he was asked to do the paperwork on the computer, he had no legal authority 
to finalize most of it or to take many other actions, such as getting a repairman for bro-
ken equipment, and so whoever was the senior regular FS on duty had to approve his 
decisions, which was awkward.  He alleged that the regular FSes kept encouraging him 
to retire.  He alleged that although he had studied for the SWEs and learned the skills of 
an FSC, he had never had a chance to practice any of them except cooking and serving 
food, as reservists were not trusted with more authority.  He alleged that he received no 
counseling  on  any  Enlisted  Performance  Support  Form;  instead,  his  command  pre-
sented  him  every  day  with  written  comments  about  his  performance  the  day  before, 
typed on a page 7 form. 

 
The  applicant  also  stated  that  he  does  not  understand  why  CGPC  said  that  he 
was  a  member  of  the  Group  until  January  2001,  since  he  was  told  that  he  had  been 
transferred to the IRR in November or December 2000. 
 

RELEVANT REGULATIONS 

 

 
The BCMR’s rule at 33 C.F.R. § 52.13 provides that “[n]o application shall be con-
sidered  by  the  Board  until  the  applicant  has  exhausted  all  effective  administrative 
remedies  afforded  under  existing  law  or  regulations,  and  such  legal  remedies  as  the 
Board may determine are practical, appropriate, and available to the applicant.” 
 

Article  10.B.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  governs  the  evaluation  of  enlisted  mem-
bers.    Article  10.B.1.b.  provides  that  “[e]ach  commanding  officer  must  ensure  all  en-
listed  members  under  their  command  receive  accurate,  fair,  objective,  and  timely 
evaluations.” Article 10.B.4.c. states that each “evaluee is ultimately responsible for: … 
3. Obtaining sufficient feedback or counseling and using that information in adjusting, 
as necessary, to meet or exceed the standards. …  5. Requesting a copy of their EPEF, if 
desired.  6. Signing in the member's signature block to indicate acknowledgment of: a. 
The counseling and review of their evaluation; … c. The appeal time frame; [and] d. His 
or her advancement potential and recommendation… “. 

 
Article 10.B.4.d.3. states that each member’s Supervisor gathers written and oral 
reports on the member’s performance; recommends numerical marks for each perform-
ance category; and “[c]ounsels [the] evaluee on the evaluation after the Approving Offi-
cial’s  action  and,  if  requested,  provides  a  copy  of  the  EPEF  to  the  member.”    Article 
10.B.4.d.4.  states  that  the  Marking  Official  gathers  reports  on  the  member’s  perform-
ance; reviews the marks recommended by the Supervisor, and assigns the final marks. 

 
Article  10.B.4.d.5.  states  that  the  Approving  Official  (normally  the  CO)  for  an 
EPEF gathers written and oral reports on an evaluee’s performance and is “responsible 
for ensuring (1) Overall consistency between assigned marks and actual behavior and 
output  …  ;  (2)  Evaluees  are  counseled  and  advised  of  appeal  procedures;  (3)  Evalua-
tions  are  submitted  on  time;  (4)  The  required  Administrative  Remarks,  CG-3307,  are 
completed to: (a) Support all marks of 1, 2, or 7, with evaluee's signature; … (c) Docu-
ment low factor marks [in accordance with Article 10.B.9.a.]; … (e) Document mark of 
“Not Recommended” when assigned in the Recommendation for Advancement block 
of  the  EPEF  [in  accordance  with]  Articles  5.C.4.b.1.l.,  5.C.4.e.5.a.,  and  10.B.7.3.”    After 
completing the EPEF and indicating whether he recommends the evaluee for advance-
ment,  the  Approving  Official  “[f]orwards  the  completed  EPEF  to  the  Supervisor  to 
counsel and inform the evaluee, via the Marking Official.” 

 
Article  10.B.7.3.  provides  that  “[i]f  the  Approving  Official  marks  "Not  Recom-
mended”, he or she must counsel the member on the steps necessary to earn a recom-
mendation  and  prepare  an  Administrative  Remarks,  CG-3307,  when  the  member  is 
otherwise  eligible  for  advancement.”    Articles  5.C.4.b.1.l.  and  5.C.4.e.5.a.  also  require 
this.  Article 10.B.7.1. provides that a rating chain’s recommendation for advancement 
must consider both past performance and “the member’s potential to perform satisfac-
torily  the  duties and responsibilities of the next higher pay grade, qualities of leader-
ship,  and  adherence  to  the  Service’s  core  values.    Each  rating  chain  member  must 

address this independent section every time they complete an employee review.”  Arti-
cle 10.B.7.4. provides that the “Approving Official’s decision on the advancement rec-
ommendation is final and may not be appealed.” 

 
Article  10.B.10.b.1.b.  provides  that  if  a  member  objects  to  an  EPEF,  he  may 
request a meeting with the Approving Official.  If the member remains unsatisfied after 
the  meeting,  he  can  appeal  the  numerical  marks  in  writing  and  “[i]f  the  member  has 
been  reassigned,  he  or  she  must  submit  the  appeal  to  the  Appeal  Authority  for  the 
former command, via the commanding officer of that command.”  Article 10.B.10.b.1.d. 
provides that reservists have 30 days to submit an appeal after they sign their EPEFs. 

 
Article 8.B.1. of the Reserve Policy Manual states that “[t]he provisions of article 
12.B concerning separation of enlisted members in the Personnel Manual, COMDTINST 
M1000.6  (series),  also  apply  to  enlisted  members  in  the  Ready  Reserve.”    Article 
12.B.16.c.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  entitled  “Probation,”  provides  that  COs  “will  not 
initiate  administrative  discharge  action  for  inaptitude,  apathy,  defective  attitudes, 
unsanitary  habits,  not  adhering  to  core  values,  or  financial  irresponsibility  until  they 
have afforded a member a reasonable probationary period to overcome these deficien-
cies. When commands contemplate discharging a member for these reasons, they shall 
counsel the member that a formal probationary period of at least six months has begun 
and  make  an  appropriate  Administrative  Remarks,  CG-3307,  entry  in  the  member’s 
PDR  that  administrative  discharge  processing  will  be  initiated  unless  the  member 
shows significant improvement in overcoming the deficiency during the probationary 
period. The member must acknowledge this entry in writing. Commanding officers are 
authorized to recommend discharge at any time during probation if the member is not 
attempting to overcome the deficiency. Submit copies of all CG-3307 entries as an enclo-
sure to the discharge recommendation submitted to Commander, (CGPC-epm-1).” 

 
Article  10.B.5.b.4.d.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  provides  that  a  rating  chain  must 
prepare a special EPEF “[a]t the end of a three-month probationary period for incom-
pentency.  [See] Article 5.C.38.c.”  Article 5.C.38.c., titled “Reduction for Incompetence,” 
provides that a member may be reduced in grade for incompetence if “the person is not 
qualified to perform the duties of his or her rate.  “[T]he commanding officer shall make 
an  Administrative  Remarks,  CG-3307  entry  in  the  Personnel  Data  Record  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 compe-
tency.    The  entry  will  clearly  identify  the  factor(s)  involved  and  the  exact  areas  that 
need improvement.  The member will acknowledge this entry by signing the Adminis-
trative  Remarks,  CG-3307.    A  reevaluation  will  be  performed  at  the  end  of  the  three 
month  period.  …    If  the  individual  responds  to  counseling  and  improves  his  or  her 
evaluation(s), no further action is required.  But if at the end of the three month period, 
the individual has failed to demonstrate the required level of professional competency, 
the reduction shall go into effect or be recommended to higher authority as befits the 
individual's rate.” Article 7.C.8. of the Reserve Policy Manual provides that “[t]he three-
month probationary period required for active duty members recommended for reduc-

tion in rate due to incompetence shall be extended to six months for SELRES reservists.”  
Article 5.C.38.d. of the Personnel Manual provides that a member may also voluntarily 
request a reduction in rate. 
 

Article  4.B.1.  of  the  Reserve  Policy  Manual  provides  that  “[c]ommands  shall 
monitor member participation and evaluate performance of prescribed training require-
ments  to  determine  compliance  with  [participation  standards].    Every  effort  shall  be 
made to correct performance deficiencies by timely counseling of members who are not 
participating  satisfactorily.  Commands  shall  document  all  counseling  in  accordance 
with Preparation and Submission of Administrative Remarks (CG-3307), COMDTINST 
1000.14 (series).”  Article 4.B.2.b. provides that “[m]embers of the SELRES who have ful-
filled their statutory MSO under 10 U.S.C. 651 and whose participation has been unsat-
isfactory, may be transferred to the IRR or the Standby Reserve, ISL, for the balance of 
their current enlistment if they still possess the potential for useful service if mobilized.  
They may also be discharged as outlined above if they do not possess the potential for 
useful service if mobilized.” 

 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

1. 

 
 
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: 
 
 
TJAG argued that the application was untimely because it was received by 
the  BCMR  on  October  31,  2003,  three  years  and  two  days  past  the  date  the  applicant 
signed the EPEF, October 29, 2000.  Title 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b) states that an application 
for  correction  must  by  “file[d]  within  three  years  after  [the  applicant]  discovers  the 
error or injustice,” unless the Board waives the statute of limitations “in the interest of 
justice.”  The Board’s rules at 33 C.F.R. § 52.22 do not define the word “filed,” the Board 
knows of no case law that defines the word within the special context of the BCMRs, 
and  TJAG  has  cited  none.    The  general  rule,  however,  is  that  “filed”  means  actually 
received by the court—or in this case the Board—not just mailed.4   This rule decreases 
disputes and uncertainty over when a filing has occurred.5  The applicant has asked the 
Board to correct the EPEF that he signed on October 29, 2000, and the application was 
not received by the BCMR within three years of that date.6  Therefore, the Board finds 
that the application was untimely. 
 

2. 

The Board, however, may waive the three-year statute of limitations when 
it is in the interest of justice to do so.  10 U.S.C. § 1552(b).  TJAG argued, citing Allen v. 

                                                 
4 Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 274 (1988) (citing many lower court cases).  
5 Id. at 275. 
6  Although on his application form, DD 149, the applicant stated only that he was appealing the marks on 
the EPEF, the Board notes that he elsewhere indicates that he believes his transfer to the IRR was unjust.  
He  was  not  transferred  to  the  IRR  until  January  31,  2001.    Therefore,  to  the  extent  that  his  application 
constitutes a request to be reinstated in the Selected Reserve, the application was timely. 

Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164 (D.D.C. 1992), that it is not in the interest of justice to waive 
the statute of limitations because (a) the applicant did not explain his delay and, TJAG 
alleged,  (b)  a  cursory  review  of  the  application  indicates  that it lacks merit.  In Allen, 
however, the court did not say that those two factors provided the only basis on which 
the Board could find it to be in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations.  
The court merely stated that, in light of the language in 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), the Board 
cannot deny a case for untimeliness without at least considering those two factors. 

 
3. 

There  are  many  exceptions  to  the  general  rule  that  “filing”  means 
“receipt,”7  and  the  Board’s  congressional  mandate  is  strongly  equitable  in  character.8  
In Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 271 (1988), the Court held that pro se prisoners should 
not be held to the general rule that “filing” means “receipt,” in part, because they are 
dependent  upon  the  mail  and  cannot  deliver  their  documents  to  their  local  courts  in 
person.    The  same  logic  applies to the Board’s applicants, most of whom are without 
counsel and live far from Washington, D.C.  The applicant has submitted a copy of a 
receipt that indicates that he mailed his application from his home in South Carolina on 
October 28, 2000, by Priority Mail Service.  This evidence shows that he made a reason-
able  effort  before  the  three-year  statutory  period  expired  to  get  his  application  to the 
Board.  Therefore, the Board finds that it is in the interest of justice to waive the statute 
of limitations and consider the merits of this case.   
 
TJAG argued that the applicant’s failure to appeal his EPEF left the Board 
 
without  jurisdiction  over  his  request.    TJAG  offered  no  authority  to  support  his 
position, except for his interpretation of the Board's rule at 33 C.F.R. § 52.13(b), which 
states  that  “[n]o  application  shall  be  considered  by  the  Board  until  the  applicant  has 
exhausted  all  effective  administrative  remedies  afforded  under  existing  law  or 
regulations,  and  such  legal  remedies  as  the  Board  may  determine  are  practical, 
appropriate  and  available  to  the  applicant.”    (Emphasis  added.)    In  Avocados  Plus  v. 
Veneman, 370 F.3d 1243, 1248 (D.C.C. 2004), the court stated “[w]hile the existence of an 
administrative  remedy  automatically  triggers  a  non-jurisdictional  exhaustion  inquiry, 
jurisdictional exhaustion  requires  much  more.    In  order  to  mandate  exhaustion,  a 
statute must contain ‘”sweeping and direct” statutory language indicating that there is 
no  federal  jurisdiction  prior  to  exhaustion.’”9    The  Board's  rule  does  not  contain 

4. 

                                                 
7  Houston  v.  Lack,  487  U.S.  266,  273-75  (1988)  (citing  the  Court’s  own  Rule  28.2  and  other  instances  in 
which  courts  count  submissions  as  timely  filed  if  they  are  mailed  by  an  expeditious  means  within  the 
prescribed period).  The Supreme Court’s rule (now Rule 29.2) is that “[a] document is timely filed if it is 
received by the Clerk within the time specified for filing; or if it is sent to the Clerk through the United 
States Postal Service by first-class mail (including express or priority mail), postage prepaid, and bears a 
postmark,  other  than  a  commercial  postage  meter  label,  showing  that  the  document  was  mailed  on  or 
before  the  last  day  for  filing;  or  if  it  is  delivered  on  or  before  the  last  day  for  filing  to  a  third-party 
commercial carrier for delivery to the Clerk within 3 calendar days.” 
8 Caddington v. United States, 178 F. Supp. 604, 607 (Ct. Cl. 1959) (holding that the BCMR has “an abiding 
moral sanction to determine insofar as possible, the true nature of an alleged injustice and to take steps to 
grant thorough and fitting relief”). 
9 Avocados Plus v. Veneman, 370 F.3d 1243, 1248 (D.C.C. 2004) (citing Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 757 
(1975)). 

5. 

“sweeping and direct” statutory language divesting it of jurisdiction due to a failure to 
exhaust administrative remedies.  Therefore, the Board finds that even if the applicant 
did not exhaust an effective administrative remedy, the Board still has jurisdiction over 
his case under 10 U.S.C. § 1552.   
 
 
TJAG  argued  that  the  Board  should  dismiss  this  case  or  deny  relief 
because  the  applicant  did  not  appeal  his  EPEF marks.  Under Article 10.B.10.b.1.d. of 
the Personnel Manual, the applicant could have appealed the disputed EPEF within 30 
days of the day he received it.  Many more than 30 days have now passed, however, 
and the chance to appeal the EPEF under Article 10.B.10.b.1.d. is no longer available or 
practical.  The Board's policy is that exhaustion of administrative remedies has occurred 
in situations where a remedy existed but is no longer available or practical.  The Board's 
policy  is  consistent  with  its  rule  at  33  C.F.R.  § 52.13(b)  and  with  congressional  intent.  
The Board believes such blanket denial of applications, as suggested by TJAG, would be 
a violation of its responsibility under 10 U.S.C. § 1552.  The Board notes that the only 
limitation  Congress  placed  on  filing  an  application  with  the  BCMR  is  the  three-year 
statute of limitations, and even allowed that to be waived in the interest of justice.  Can 
an agency completely divest an active duty or former service member of review by the 
BCMR when Congress did not do so?  We think not.  As the Supreme Court stated in 
McCarthy  v.  Madigan,  503  U.S.  140,  144  (1992),  “Of  ‘paramount  importance'  to  any 
exhaustion inquiry is congressional intent.”10 
 
 
In light of the above considerations, the Board finds that the applicant has 
exhausted all practical and effective administrative remedies now available to him.  The 
Board will therefore consider his case on the merits. 
 
 
Absent evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes that the applicant’s 
rating officials acted correctly, lawfully, and in good faith in making their evaluations.11 
The applicant’s own opinion that his performance was not sufficiently poor to merit his 
rating chain's actions and the EPEF marks is insufficient to overcome this presumption.  
The  applicant  made  many  allegations  about  his  command’s  deficiencies  in  terms  of 
record-keeping,  counseling,  and  training  of  and  attitudes  towards  reservists,  but  he 
submitted no evidence to support his allegations. 
 
 
The  record  indicates  that  on  May  31,  2000,  the  applicant  was  counseled 
about the perceived deficiencies in his performance and placed on performance proba-
tion in accordance with Article 12.B.16.c. of the Personnel Manual.  The record further 
indicates that he did not meet his command’s expectations during the period of proba-
tion.    Although  he  alleged  that  he  received  insufficient  counseling,  he  admitted  that 
during his ADT he received written counseling about his performance every day on a 
page 7.  
 
                                                 
10 McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 144 (1992) (citing Patsy v. Board of Regents of Florida, 457 U.S. 496, 501 
(1982)). 
11 Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979). 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

The applicant did not allege that he could perform all of the duties of his 
 
rate  without  significant  assistance  from  other  FSes;  instead,  he  alleged  that  he  could 
have learned to perform them if his command had provided him more training.  The 
record  indicates  that  the  applicant  attended  both  “A”  and  “C”  Schools,  and  he  has 
admitted that he was later provided some computer training for his rate by the Coast 
Guard.  The applicant has not proved that he had the skills required of an FSC or that 
his command acted unreasonably in expecting him to have those skills with the training 
already  provided  him.    Moreover,  the  Board  notes  that  much  of  the  criticism  of  the 
applicant’s performance made by his command both on May 31, 2000, and on October 
12, 2000, had nothing to do with his computer skills. 
 
 
The  record  indicates  that  the  applicant’s  command  acted  in  accordance 
with  Articles  12.B.16.c.,  10.B.5.b.4.d.,  and  5.C.38.c.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  in  placing 
the applicant on performance probation.  Under Articles 12.B.16.c. and 5.C.38.c., the CO 
acted within his discretion in terminating the probationary period early and preparing 
the disputed EPEF.  Rather than separating the applicant, the CO apparently gave him 
the options of accepting a reduction in grade or transferring to the IRR.  Although the 
applicant  made  many  allegations  about  his  command’s  attitude  and  deficiencies,  he 
submitted  no  evidence  to  support  his  allegations,  and  he  has  not  proved  that  his CO 
abused  his  discretion  in  placing  him  on  performance  probation,  in  terminating  the 
probationary  period  early,  and  in  offering  the  applicant  the  stated  options,  which 
resulted in his transfer to the IRR. 
 
 
 

 Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

11. 

ORDER 

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

 
 

 
 

 
 
record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Terry E. Bathen 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 Molly McConville Weber