DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 1998-004 
 
 
   

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10, United States 
Code.    It  was  commenced  on  October  7,  1997,  upon  the  BCMR’s  receipt  of  the 
applicant’s request for correction. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated August 27, 1998, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST FOR RELIEF 

 
The applicant, a xxxxxxxxxxx in the Coast Guard, asked the Board to correct his 
 
record  by  deleting  a  comment  from  the  officer  evaluation  report  (OER)  covering  the 
period May 1, 199x, to August 23, 199x (contested OER).  The comment, in block 9.f. of 
that OER, appears as follows:   
 

.  .  .  Took  appropriate  steps  to  meet  COMDT  standards  with  regard  to 
alcohol use which had begun to affect performance. . . . 

 

 
 

  
 

 

 

APPLICANT'S ALLEGATIONS 

 
In his application, the applicant included a letter from the Coast Guard Personnel 
Command to his Reviewer which stated that the OER Administrator was returning for 
revision the first OER drafted by the applicant’s rating chain for the period May 1, 199x, 
to August, 23, 199x, because it contained the following prohibited comment:   
 

.  .  .  Dealt  in  a  forthright  way  with  alcoholism,  seeking  treatment  and 
maintaining an aggressive aftercare program. . . . 

 

After  this  prohibited  comment  was  replaced  with  the  one  which  the  applicant 
has asked the Board to remove, the OER passed review by the applicant’s rating chain 
and the OER Administrator.  The applicant alleged that “[t]he revised comment, while 
having a derogatory affect [sic], is not supported or amplified by any other comment or 
mark in the OER.”  He stated that he had established a “record of solid performance,” 
which the rest of the disputed OER reflects. 
 
The applicant alleged that he had no alcohol incidents in his record, but that he 
 
had been diagnosed as an alcoholic and had referred himself to a treatment program.  
He  stated  that  he  has  strictly  adhered  to  his  prescribed  treatment  of  aftercare  and 
abstinence  and  has  begun  counseling  other  members  “who  show  signs  of  having 
problems with alcohol.”   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On June 16, 1998, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended denial of 

 
 
the applicant’s request for relief.   
 
 
The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence 
that  “the  challenged  OER  is  the  result  of  an  error  or  injustice”  to  “overcome  the 
presumption  of  the  administrative  regularity  in  the  completion  or  content  of  the 
contested OER.”  According to the Coast Guard Personnel Command, the first draft of 
the OER was returned for revision because it referred to applicant’s alcoholism, which, 
as a medical diagnosis rather than a statement of performance, cannot be mentioned in 
an OER.  However, “[a]s corrected, the OER properly refers to the effect of Applicant’s 
use of alcohol on his performance, not to an underlying medical condition.  This is a 
completely appropriate performance observation under the [Officer Evaluation System] 
regulations,  and  directly  relevant  to  Applicant’s  performance  in  the  health  and  well-
being standard.” 
 
 
The Chief Counsel pointed out that the comments in block 9.f. are supposed to 
support  whatever  numerical  marks  the  applicant  has  received  in  blocks  9.a.  through 
9.e., rather than vice versa as the applicant suggested.  The applicant received a mark of 
4 (on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being the poorest performance level) for block 9.e., which is 
titled  “Health  and  Well-Being”  and  which  is  expressly  required  to  reflect  an  officer’s 
use of alcohol as well as his or her weight and effort to care for his or her health during 
the rating period.  Thus, the Chief Counsel stated, it was appropriate for the applicant’s 
rating chain to support the mark of 4 by including a comment about whether and how 
the applicant’s use of alcohol had affected his job performance. 
 

In  addition,  the  Chief  Counsel  pointed  out  that  the  standards  an  officer  is 
supposed to meet to qualify for a mark of 4 in block 9.e. allow only “discriminate” use 
of  alcohol  that  does  not  affect  the  officer’s  job  performance  or  social  behavior.  
Therefore, the comment about the effect of alcohol on the applicant’s job performance 
could  have  supported  a  lower  mark.    However,  because  the  numerical  marks  are 
cumulative assessments of an officer’s overall performance in each category, the Chief 
Counsel stated, the inclusion of a comment that reveals one way in which the officer did 
not  meet  the  standards  (amid  many other comments that show how he did meet the 
standards)  is  not  automatically  inconsistent.    In  fact,  in  justifying  the  marks,  “rating 
officials are encouraged to cite performance weaknesses as well as strengths.”  
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  also  stated  that  the  absence  of  an  “alcohol  incident”  in  the 
applicant’s  record  does  not  mean  that  the  comment  in  the  OER  is  unjust.    Alcohol 
incidents  are  grounds  for  being  separated  from  the  Coast  Guard,  but  they  are  not  a 
prerequisite  for  including  a  comment  about  how  alcohol  has  affected  an  officer’s 
performance in an OER. 
 
Finally, the Chief Counsel stated that the applicant had not taken advantage of 
 
the opportunity to submit a reply that would be included with the OER in his record.  
The  Chief  Counsel  alleged  that  “[i]n  foregoing  this  timely  opportunity,  Applicant’s 
failure to submit an OER reply was tacit indication that he accepted the rating official’s 
characterization of his performance.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
 In response to the Chief Counsel’s Advisory Opinion, the applicant alleged that 
his  rating  chain  had  deviated  from  common  practice  by  including  the  comment.    He 
wrote,  “In  my  experience,  once  a  performance  problem  is  perceived,  the  member  is 
confronted with it and given the opportunity to correct it, before the member’s OER is 
adversely  affected.  .  .  .  I  was  not  given  this  common  courtesy.  .  .  .  The  fact  that  I 
voluntarily took immediate steps to correct the problem, shows that if I had been given 
the opportunity I would have taken it.”  He also stated that he has continued to stay 
sober. 
 

RELEVANT REGULATIONS 

 

Preparing an OER 
 
 
Article 10-A-4 of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A) 
describes how members of a rating chain should prepare an OER.  Section 10-A-4d.(7) 
states the following: 
 

(b)    For  each  evaluation  area,  the  Reporting  Officer  shall  review  the 
Reported-on  Officer’s  performance  and  qualities  observed  and  noted 
during  the  reporting  period. 
  Then,  for  each  of  the  performance 

to 

the 

* * * 

the  Reported-on  Officer’s  performance 

dimensions, the Reporting Officer shall carefully read the standards and 
compare 
level  of 
performance  described  by  the  standards.  .  .  .  After  determining  which 
block best describes the Reported-on Officer’s performance and qualities 
during the marking period, the Reporting Officer fills in the appropriate 
circle on the form in ink. 

(d)    In  the  “Comments”  sections  following  each  evaluation  area,  the 
Reporting  Officer  shall  include  comments  citing  specific  aspects  of  the 
Reported-on  Officer’s  performance  and  behavior  for  each  mark  that 
deviates  from  a  “4.”    The  Reporting  Officer  shall  draw  on  his/her  own 
observations,  from  information  provided  by  the  Supervisor,  and  from 
other information accumulated during the reporting period. 
 
(e)    Comments  should  amplify  and  be  consistent  with  the  numerical 
evaluations in the evaluation area.  They should identify specific strengths 
and weaknesses in performance or qualities.  Well-written comments must 
be sufficiently specific to paint a picture of the officer’s performance and 
qualities  which  compares  reasonably  with  the  picture  defined  by  the 
standards marked on the performance dimensions in the evaluation area. . 
. . 
 
(f)  Citing weaknesses does not make the OER derogatory and will not be 
interpreted  as  such,  unless  the  OER  contains  a  derogatory  mark  in 
accordance with article 10-A-4i. 

Section  10-A-4g.(3)(c)  bars  members  of  a  rating  chain  from  “engag[ing]  in 

 
 
Section  10-A-4i.  requires  special  processing  for  OERs  determined  to  be 
“derogatory.”  For blocks in section 9 of an OER, the only mark which qualifies an OER 
as “derogatory” is a mark of 1 (the lowest). 
 
 
medical or psychological speculation, or mention[ing] any medical diagnosis.” 
 
Replies to OERs 
 
 
Section 10-A-4h. allows the Reported-on Officer to reply to any OER and have 
the reply filed with the OER if they are submitted within 14 days of receipt of the OER 
copy  from  the  commandant.    The  provision  for  reply  is  intended  to  “provide  an 
opportunity for the Reported-on Officer to express a view of performance which may 
differ from that of a rating official.” 
 
Other Avenues for Performance Feedback 
 

Article 10-A-2 of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A) 
 
describes  the  responsibilities  of  the  members  of  a  rating  chain,  which  includes  the 
Reported-on Officer, a Supervisor, a Reporting Officer, and a Reviewer.   
 
 
Section 10-A-2c.(2)(c) states that it is the responsibility of the Reported-on Officer 
to “[a]s necessary, seek[] performance feedback from the Supervisor during the period.” 
 

Section  10-A-2d.(2)(e)  states  that  one  of  the  Supervisor’s  responsibilities,  apart 
from  completing  the  blocks  in  sections  2  through  7  of  each  OER,  is  to  “[p]rovide[] 
performance feedback to the Reported-on Officer upon that officer’s request during the 
period or at such other times as the Supervisor deems appropriate.”   

 
Section  10-A-2e.(1)  states  that  one  of  the  Reporting  Officer’s  responsibilities, 
apart  from  completing  the  blocks  in  sections  8  through  13  of  each  OER,  is  to 
“[p]rovide[] performance feedback to the Reported-on Officer as appropriate.” 
 

Section  10-A-2f.(2)  states  that  the  Reviewer  “[e]nsures  the  OER  reflects  a 
reasonably  consistent  picture  of  the  Reported-on Officer’s performance and potential. 
. . . [and] [c]hecks for obvious errors, omissions, or inconsistencies between numerical 
evaluations and written comments and any failures to comply with instructions. 
 

SUMMARY OF  APPLICANT’S RECORD 

 
Blocks 9.e. and 9.f. in Contested OER 
 

 

7  N/O1 
 

 

Blocks 9.e. and 9.f. appear as follows in the applicant’s OER: 

 

  2 

        4  

3 
 

   6 

 

       5    

     1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
Failed to meet minimum 
standards of weight control or 
sobriety. 

Maintained weight standards.  
Used alcohol only 
discriminately or not at all; job 
performance and social 
behavior was never affected.  
Encouraged similar behavior 
in others and held 
subordinates accountable.  
Intemperate alcohol use by 
subordinates not tolerated. 

 
 
 
e.  HEALTH AND WELL-
BEING: 
 
 
The extent to which an 
 
officer exercised 
moderation in the use of 
 
alcohol.  The degree to 
 
which an officer 
maintained weight 
 
standards.  The measure 
of an officer’s effort to 
 
invest in the Coast 
Guard’s future by caring 
 
for his or her health. 
 
 
f.  COMMENTS: 
consistently in the Flag’s view.  Led the way in examining xxx force allocation and xxxs. . .  
 
XXXX Flag’s accepted his xxx Model for implementation.  Began applying the concepts in the 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxx Model across programs with favorable results.  Developed a xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Plan 
which was presented to and adopted by COMDT.  Worked long hours preparing short fused Flag 
 
briefs.  Advice to flag on xxxxxxxxx issues on target during an extremely fluid and volatile 
 
period in xxxxxxxxxxxx.  Developed sound recommendations for enforcement policy on the new 
xxxxxxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxxx regulations in xxxxx xxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxxxxx and state waters. . .  
                                                 
Resulted refining xx xxxxxxxx requirements for xx & xx.  Took appropriate steps to meet COMDT 
standards with regard to alcohol use which had begun to affect performance.  Met CG weight 
1 A mark in the N/O column indicates the Reporting Officer had no opportunity to evaluate the officer’s 
standards  
performance with regards to the category. 

Remarkable vitality, 
enthusiasm, alertness, and 
energy level.  Consistently 
contributed at high 
standards.  Demonstrated a 
significant commitment, 
beyond setting an example, 
to the well-being of self and 
subordinates.  Contributed 
a leadership role in the 
civilian/military community 
outside normal duties.  
Noteworthy examples. 

Excellent initiative identifying key issues in xxx prgm & keeping them 

 
 
 
 

Other Marks and Comments in Contested OER 
 
 
Apart from the mark of 4 the applicant received for the Health and Well-Being 
block,  he  received  another  4  for  Human  Relations;  marks  of  5  for  Military  Bearing, 
Stamina,  Responsibility,  Writing,  Speaking  and  Listening,  Evaluations,  Directing 
Others,  Working  with  Others,  Collateral  Duty/Administrative  Expertise,  Work-Life 
Sensitivity, and Responsiveness; and marks of 6 for Being Prepared, Using Resources, 
Getting Results, Operational/Specialty Expertise, Looking Out for Others, Developing 
Subordinates, Initiative, Judgment, Professionalism, and Dealing with the Public.  The 
average of all marks in the contested OER is 5.35.  None of the comments in the OER 
other than the one in dispute is in any way negative.  All reflect a very proficient and 
industrious  officer.    In  comparison  with  other  officers,  the  applicant  was  rated  as  an 
“[e]xceptional performer; very competent, highly respected professional.” 
 
Other OERs 
 
 
In the five OERs of the applicant that preceded the one in dispute, covering the 
period  from  December  1,  199x,  to  April  30,  199x,  the  applicant’s  aggregate  average 
mark  in  all  categories  was  5.23.    In  the  Health  and  Well-Being  category,  he  received 
three 4s and two 5s.  The only mention of alcohol among the five OERs is “practiced 
moderation with alcohol” in an OER covering the first half of 199x. 
 
 
In  the  two  OERs  the  applicant  has  received  since  the  one  in  dispute,  his 
aggregate average mark in all categories is 5.00.  In the Health and Well-Being category, 
he has received one 5 and one 4.  One comment states that he “[o]ffers alternative to 
alcohol in social situations.” 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

1. 

2. 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 

 
 
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 
applicable law: 
 
 
of title 10, United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 
 
The applicant requested an oral hearing before the Board.  The Chairman, 
acting pursuant to 33 CFR 52.31, denied the request and recommended disposition of 
the case without a hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommendation. 
 
 
The Board finds that, although Section 10-A-4g.(3)(c) of the Coast Guard 
Personnel Manual prohibits any mention of a medical diagnosis, such as alcoholism, in 
an OER, comments in block 9.f. concerning an officer’s use of alcohol and its effect on 
his or her performance during the rating period are not only appropriate but expressly 

3. 

4. 

5. 

8. 

6. 

encouraged.  Having an “alcohol incident” in one’s military record is not a prerequisite 
for having one’s rating chain make comments pertaining to one’s use of alcohol in an 
OER. 
 
 
The applicant has not denied the Reporting Officer’s assertion that his use 
of alcohol detrimentally affected his performance during the rating period.  He has not 
alleged  that  the  comment  is  in  any  way  untrue.    He  has  alleged  that  the  comment 
concerning the detrimental effect of alcohol on his performance is not supported by the 
other  comments  and  marks  in  the  contested  OER  and  is  inconsistent  with  his 
“established record of solid performance.” 
 
 
Section 10-A-4d.(7) requires a Reporting Officer, in choosing a numerical 
mark  for  each  category,  to  choose  the  one  which  “best  describes”  an  officer’s 
performance  during  the  rating  period.    Comments  are  supposed  to  “cit[e]  specific 
aspects  of  the  Reported-on  Officer’s  performance  and  behavior  for  each  mark  that 
deviates from a ‘4’”; to “identify specific strengths and weaknesses in performance or 
qualities”; and to “amplify and be consistent with the numerical evaluations.” 
 
 
Because a mark of 4 in block 9.e. is supposed to be given to an officer who 
“[u]sed  alcohol  only  discriminately  [sic]  or  not  at  all;  job  performance  and  social 
behavior  was  [sic]  never  affected,”  the  comment  concerning  the  applicant’s  use  of 
alcohol appears to be inconsistent with the mark he received.  Nevertheless, the Board 
finds  that  the  inclusion  of  the  disputed  comment  does  not  violate  the  instructional 
regulations  of  Section  10-A-4d.(7).    The  comment  identifies  a  specific  problem  of  the 
applicant during at least part of the rating period, and the problem is very germane to 
the category of Health and Well-Being. 
 
Although  the  comment  would  have  supported  a  lower  mark,  the  rating 
 
chain apparently thought that a mark of 4 best described the applicant’s performance in 
the  Health  and  Well-Being  category  despite  the  fact  that  he  had  not  met  one  of  the 
prescribed  standards  for  the  category.    The  applicant  does  not  deny  the  truth  of  the 
comment.  The Board can only assume that other unmentioned qualities of the applicant 
convinced the Reporting Officer to give the applicant a higher mark in this category.  By 
noting that the applicant had taken steps to correct the behavior, the Reporting Officer 
clearly mitigated the impact of the negative comment, but if the applicant wanted the 
negative comment to be further counterbalanced by his subsequent sober behavior, he 
could have submitted a reply to the OER. 
 
 
In addition, the Board finds that neither the remainder of the marks and 
comments in the OER nor the applicant’s “record of solid performance” is inconsistent 
with  the  disputed  comment.    Marks  of  4,  5,  and  6  are  very  good  but  do  not  reflect 
absolutely perfect, undiminished performance.  Likewise, the fact that all of the other 
comments in the OER reflect the applicant’s strengths does not prove that he had no 
weakness  or  that  his  use  of  alcohol  had  not  begun  to  affect  his  performance,  as  his 

7. 

rating  chain  asserted.    Although  the  average  mark  the  applicant  received  in  the 
contested OER is slightly better than his average mark in the five preceding OERs, the 
rating chain may nevertheless have noticed some slippage in his performance during 
the  rating  period  which  was  then  corrected  when  the  applicant  stopped  drinking 
alcohol. 
 
 
The applicant also alleged that in the Coast Guard it is common for one’s 
superior officers to point out one’s failings and not report them in the next OER if they 
are overcome, and that this did not happen in his case.  He cites this lack of warning as 
an injustice. 
 
 
10.  Although  it  may  well  be  common  practice  for  superior  officers  to  give 
their subordinates warnings that their shortcomings have been noticed before factoring 
them into their evaluations, the fact that the applicant did not receive such a warning 
does not make the inclusion of the disputed comment an error or injustice.  Section 10-
A-2  states  that  Supervisors  and  Reporting  Officers  should  provide  performance 
feedback  as  “appropriate.”    However,  it  never  says  that  observed  problems  that  are 
subsequently  corrected  should  not  be  mentioned  in  an  OER.    Nor  does  it  state  that 
OERs  should  only  reflect  problems  about  which  the  Reported-on  Officer  has  ignored 
warnings.    Moreover,  it  places  much  of  the  responsibility  for  receiving  informal 
feedback during the middle of a rating period on the Reported-on Officer. 
 
 
injustice by including the disputed comment in the applicant’s OER. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Therefore, the Board finds that the Coast Guard has committed no error or 

12.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied.  

9. 

11. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

The  application  for  correction  of  the  military  record  of  XXXXXXX,  USCG,  is 

ORDER 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
Walter K. Myers 

 

 

 
Michael K. Nolan 

 

 

 
L. L. Sutter 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 
denied.