N.B.:  The delegate of the Secretary concurred in the relief recommended 
by the Board in this case on March 22, 2000. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 1998-073 
 
 
   

 

 
 

 

 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, 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 commenced on April 21, 1998, 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  September  9,  1999,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST FOR RELIEF 

 
 
The  applicant,  a  xxxxxxxxxxxx  serving  on  an  active  duty  contract in the Coast 
Guard Reserve, asked the Board to correct his record by removing two officer evalua-
tions reports (OERs) issued prior to his discharge from the regular Coast Guard.  The 
disputed OERs were issued for the periods August 17, 199x, to March 31, 199x (OER1), 
and April 1, 199x, to September 30, 199x (OER2).  The applicant asked that the disputed 
OERs be replaced by OERs marked “For Continuity Purposes Only.”  During the time 
covered by these disputed OERs, the applicant was a student engineer aboard the Coast 
Guard cutter xxxx. 
 
 
The applicant also asked the Board to remove his failures of selection to lieuten-
ant.  He asked that, if he is selected for promotion by the next selection board, his date 
of rank be back-dated to what it would have been had he been selected for promotion 
by  the  selection  board  that  met  in  199x.    He  asked  to  be  awarded  all  back-pay  and 
allowances should this occur. 
 

The applicant anticipated that he might be released from active duty by the time 
 
the Board makes its decision.  If this is the case, he wants to be offered an opportunity to 
return to active duty and to have his record corrected to show that he never left active 
duty.  Under such circumstances, he asked to be awarded all back-pay and allowances, 
including leave, that he would have received had he never left active duty.  The appli-
cant specified that, should the awarded accrued leave exceed 60 days, he would like to 
have the option of immediately taking the leave that exceeds 60 days prior to the end of 
the fiscal year or selling the leave that exceeds 60 days back to the Coast Guard “with-
out  prejudice  to  his  total  career  entitlement  to  otherwise  ‘sell  back’  leave  days.”    In 
addition, should he be returned to active duty as a result of this decision, the applicant 
asked that his consideration by a selection board be delayed until two additional regu-
lar scheduled OERs are included in his record. 
 

APPLICANT'S ALLEGATIONS 

 

The  applicant  alleged  that  he  received  two  negative  and  inaccurate  OERs  as  a 
student engineer because his supervisor, the Engineer Officer on the cutter xxxx, incor-
rectly  administered  his  qualification  process  for  the  Student  Engineering  Program 
(SEP).    When  the  applicant  began serving on the xxxx, the SEP Instruction (COMDT-
INST M3502.11) had recently been revised.  The new standards had not yet been tested 
to determine whether the goals were attainable given cutters’ unpredictable schedules.  
The applicant alleged that his supervisor ignored many of the new policies and wrongly 
assigned  him  certain  time-consuming  duties  on  the  xxxx  in  violation  of  SEP  rules.  
Between his supervisor’s incorrect demands, the xxxx’s schedule, and the extra duties 
he was wrongly assigned, it was “physically impossible for him to accomplish what the 
Supervisor  erroneously  expected.”  As  a  result,  he  received  poor  OERs  and  failed  of 
selection twice in 199x and 199x. 
 
Allegations Regarding the First Reporting Period Aboard the xxxx 

 
The  applicant  argued  that  his  supervisor  ignored  Paragraph  3.b.  of  the  SEP 
Instruction, which allows students to complete Parts A and B of the qualification proc-
ess in non-serial order if a cutter’s schedule makes completing Part A (which requires 
underway  time)  before  Part  B  (which  is  mostly  administrative)  impracticable.    The 
applicant alleged that his supervisor told him, in violation of policy, that he could not 
begin Part B until Part A was completed.   

 
The applicant alleged that his supervisor should have applied Paragraph 3.b. of 
the SEP Instruction because the xxxx’s schedule made it impossible for him to complete 
Part  A  and  Part  B  in  consecutive  order  within  the  time  recommended  by  the  SEP 
Instruction.  He explained that the xxxx remained in port for the first four and one-half 
months  of  his  tour  of  duty.    Most  of  the  requirements  of  Part  A  involve  watch 
qualification and cannot be completed without underway time.  Therefore, he alleged, 

he  was  not  permitted  to  make  progress  on  his  SEP  qualification  during  his  first  four 
months on board, which was more than 20 percent of his total time aboard the xxxx. 
 
The  applicant  also  alleged  that,  before  he  reported  to  the  xxxx  on  August  27, 
 
199x, he had orders to attend Damage Control Assistant School (off the boat) as of Sep-
tember 2, 199x.  Attending the school is one of the requirements of Part A.  However, 
the captain canceled his orders to attend the school the same day he reported aboard. 
 

The captain also immediately ordered him “to assume the duties of the vessel’s 
Engineering  Administrative  Assistant  (EAA).”    Apparently,  the  xxxx’s  engineering 
administrative records were not in compliance with Coast Guard standards and had to 
be readied in time for the cutter’s scheduled deployment in January 199x.  As the EAA, 
the  applicant  “inspected,  accounted  for,  updated,  reproduced  and/or  replaced  over 
4000 drawings, more than 100 technical manuals, all required historical records, and all 
publications  needed  to  pass  .  .  . inspection.”  As a result of the applicant’s work, the 
xxxx passed the inspection of its engineering administrative records.   

 
The applicant alleged that his work with the records could have counted toward 
his fulfillment of the requirements of Part B of the SEP, but his supervisor “consistently 
refused to treat any of the work as related to Part ‘B’ until Part ‘A’ was completed.  That 
refusal was in violation of the [SEP Instruction], which specifically provides for flexibil-
ity in completing SEP qualifications based on a cutter’s schedule.”  Because his supervi-
sor refused to count his EAA work toward his fulfillment of the Part B requirements, his 
supervisor assigned him low marks and wrote negative comments in his OER concern-
ing his progress toward qualification. 

The applicant further stated that, in addition to EAA, he was ordered to perform 
the collateral duty of Damage Control Personnel Qualification Standard (DCPQS) offi-
cer.  This extra duty, he alleged, violated Paragraph 2.c. of the SEP Instruction.  How-
ever, he qualified quickly for the extra duty so that he could train the crew in damage 
control before the cutter got underway in January 199x.  The captain gave the applicant 
a letter of commendation for this service.  The applicant stated that he also qualified as a 
Damage  Control  Locker  Leader  and  Team  Leader  (one  of  the  Part  A  requirements) 
“well within the prescribed time frame.” 
 
 
Despite this extra work, however, the applicant was assigned low marks in OER1 
for  the  categories  “Being  Prepared,”  “Using  Resources,”  “Getting  Results,”  and  “Re-
sponsiveness.”  He alleged that these low marks stand “in contradiction of the sum of 
the comments” in the corresponding comment block. 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that,  once  the  xxxx  got  underway,  his  progress  toward 
 
qualification was further impeded by his placement on port and starboard (P/S) duty.  
P/S duty requires an officer to alternate six hours on duty and six hours off duty twice 
each day.  “Over a period of days, it becomes a grueling ordeal and detracts from the 
officer’s performance.”  The applicant alleged that, when he questioned his assignment 

to continuous P/S duty, his supervisor threatened him with removal from the SEP and 
told him “the P/S duty was an ‘incentive’ to accelerate the qualification process.”  “By 
using P/S duty to make the SEP completion more difficult, the [supervisor] was in vio-
lation of Section 5.a.(3)(a).3. of the new instruction.”   
 
 
Another obstacle to his completion of the Part A requirements during the report-
ing period for OER1, the applicant alleged, was the delay in his appearance before the 
Auxiliary  Watch  qualification  board.    The  applicant  stated  that  he  completed  the 
requirements for this board on March 9, 199x, prior to the end of the rating period for 
OER1 on March 31, 199x.  However, his supervisor “delayed his appearance before the 
Auxiliary Watch qualification board until April 11, 199x.” 
 

The applicant alleged that ultimately, “approximately 70% of the rating period 
for  [OER1]  was  spent  in  port.”    Therefore,  “he  was  prevented  from  completing  even 
half of the watch qualifications imposed as a prerequisite for [the supervisor] to review 
his Part ‘A’ work.” 
 

The  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  finally  allowed  to  attend  Damage  Control 
School for 47 days in May and June 199x.  The applicant argued that this timing caused 
him to miss underway time, whereas, had he attended the school as originally sched-
uled, in September and October 199x, he would not have missed any underway time. 

 
Furthermore, the applicant alleged that when he had reported aboard the xxxx, 
his supervisor had told him he would not have to provide written answers to Part A 
because “all research called for in Part ‘A’ would be covered in the watch qualification 
process.”    However,  when  he  finally  finished  the  watch  qualification  process,  the 
supervisor changed his mind and required written answers.  Therefore, the applicant’s 
completion  of  Part  A  was  further  delayed,  through  no  fault  of  his  own,  because  the 
applicant  could  have  prepared  the  written  answers  to  Part  A  much  sooner,  had  he 
known they would be required. 

Allegations Regarding the Second Reporting Period Aboard the xxxx 
 

 
The applicant also alleged that his supervisor failed to counsel him monthly, as 
required by the SEP Instruction, after April 199x.  He submitted a copy of his “Student 
Engineer  Monthly  Meeting  Check-Off  Sheet,”  which  bears  no  signatures  after  April 
199x.  Instead, his supervisor informally indicated to him “on only a few occasions, that 
he had some concern that [the applicant] was moving through the program too slowly.”  
The applicant alleged that he increased his production after each such advisement. 
 
 
As  a  result  of  these  obstacles  and  delays,  the  applicant  alleged,  he  “was  not 
allowed  to  present  any  Part  ‘A’  qualification  sections  for  [the  supervisor’s]  signature 
until October 22, 199x.  No Part ‘B’ qualification sections were able to be presented for 
[the  supervisor’s]  signature  until  late  December  199x  and  early  January  199x.”    The 
applicant alleged that he completed the SEP in April 199x, after only 5 months of total 
underway  time  and  just  15  months  after  the  xxxx  first  got  underway.    The  applicant 
alleged  that  the  SEP  manual  recommends  the  SEP  course  be  completed  within  14 
months, but that his supervisor’s actions made this impossible. 
 
Allegations Regarding the Disputed OERs 
 
The applicant alleged that, in contrast to the low marks in the disputed OERs, the 
 
actual quality of his work is documented in his qualification letters and in some of the 
comments in the OERs, which show that he performed good work.  He alleged that his 
rating chain ignored the fact that in his progress under SEP, he “was ahead of most Stu-
dent Engineers on WHEC’s (including the other Student Engineer on CGC xxxx).”  He 
alleged that his supervisor told him that the low marks and comments in the disputed 
OERs were intended “as incentives for him to perform in accordance with the expec-
tations set by the Supervisor.”  Because such a purpose is impermissible under the Per-
sonnel  Manual,  and  because  the  supervisor’s  “performance  expectations  were  not  in 

conformance  with  the  Coast  Guard’s  official  standards  in  effect  at  the  time,”  the  dis-
puted OERs are unjust and should be removed. 
 
 
With respect to OER1, the applicant alleged that the comments support higher 
marks than those actually assigned and that no examples are cited to support the mark 
of 31 in block 3.d., Responsiveness, as required by the Personnel Manual.  The applicant 
alleged that the mark of N/O, meaning “not observed,” in the category Warfare Exper-
tise is inaccurate.  He cited his duties as Damage Control Assistant, Lead Locker Leader, 
and Damage Control Trainer and his completion of Damage Control Assistant School, 
Advanced  Shipboard  Firefighting  School,  and  “several  Team  Trainers  for  shipboard 
damage control” as evidence that his supervisor had ample basis on which to judge his 
performance in this category but ignored it in violation of Article 10-A-4.d.(4)(d) and (f). 
 
 
The applicant alleged that OER1 is also inaccurate because the reporting officer 
erred  by  stating  in  block  10.d.  that  he  rarely  dealt  with  the  public.    As  evidence,  the 
applicant pointed out that block 4.c. documents his volunteer work at a local elemen-
tary school and his receipt of the Humanitarian Service Medal for volunteer work dur-
ing an October 199x fire.  
 
 
With respect to OER2, the applicant alleged that it omitted his accomplishments 
as Auxiliary Division Officer.  This duty, he stated, put him in charge of “[a]ll water, 
fuel, compressed air, steam, heating, A/C, sewage, and other crew comfort equipment 
and issues.”  The applicant also alleged that the comments in OER2 that he “[h]ad diffi-
culty meeting deadlines,” “often had to be prompted to increase productivity and out-
put,”  and  “[r]arely  kept  [the]  chain  of  command  informed  about  casualties  and/or 
repairs”  are  false.    He  stated  that  all  work,  part,  and  repair  requests  and  casualty 
reports had to be signed by his supervisor, and so no engineering work could be done 
without his supervisor knowing.  The applicant alleged that the supervisor provided no 
examples to justify these comments. 
 
 
The applicant also alleged that the marks of 3 he received in blocks 3.c. (Getting 
Results),  3.d.  (Responsiveness),  and  9.a.  (Initiative)  of  OER2  are  not  supported  in  the 
comments, as required by the Personnel Manual. 
 
The  applicant  further  stated  that  a  new  Executive  Officer  reported  aboard  the 
 
xxxx  just  two  months  before  the  end  of  the  second  reporting  period.    However,  the 
applicant  alleged,  the  previous  Executive  Officer,  as  the  applicant’s  reporting  officer, 
did not prepare a written evaluation of the applicant as required by the Personnel Man-
ual.  In addition, the new Executive Officer, instead of marking N/O in blocks 9.f. and 
11 as required by the Personnel Manual when the period of observation is limited, sim-
ply reiterated the supervisor’s comments.   
 

                                                 
1  Officers are evaluated on a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 being the best mark. 

As further evidence of the reporting officer’s errors, the applicant alleged that, 
whereas the reporting officer commented in block 10.d. that he had “[a]bly represented 
the Coast Guard . . . during the xxxxx,” the applicant was not there; at the time, he was 
at damage control school.  Another error in OER2 is that block 9.f. indicates he arrived 
aboard the xxxx at least two months earlier than was actually true. 
 
 
The applicant also alleged that at the end of each rating period, he prepared Offi-
cer  Support  Forms  for  his  supervisor.    However,  his  supervisor  told  him  they  were 
unnecessary,  threw  them  away,  and  failed  to  use  them  as  a  counseling  tool  in  accor-
dance with the Personnel Manual.  After receiving each of the disputed OERs, the appli-
cant alleged, he approached his supervisor for counseling but was rejected.  His super-
visor merely told him that “he could ‘recover’ from those OERs.” 
 

In addition, the applicant alleged that his reporting officer, the Executive Officer 
of the xxxx, did not require the supervisor to use the Officer Support Forms, as required 
by Article 10-A-2.e.(2)(d) of the Personnel Manual.   The reporting officer also failed to 
“ensure that the SEP was properly administered to produce accurate evaluations of [the 
applicant’s] performance and progress in completing it.” 

 
The  applicant  argued  that,  because  OER1  and  OER2  are  full  of  inaccuracies, 
omissions, and unsupported low marks, they are unjust and should be removed from 
the record.  Furthermore, because the disputed OERs were in his record before the 1995 
and 1996 selection boards, his failures of selection should be removed so that he will 
have additional chances to be promoted.  The applicant further alleged that the evalua-
tion system was unfairly conducted as a whole on the xxxx.  As evidence he pointed out 
that nine other xxxxxx who served on the xxxx from July 199x to July 199x have been 
passed over for selection twice and retired involuntarily.  He also alleged that 21 out of 
the 28 (75 percent) officers who served on the xxxx during those three years have been 
involuntarily separated from the Coast Guard. 

 
Finally, the applicant alleged that his performance in his current billet, the only 
billet he has filled since his tour of duty on the xxxx, shows that the OERs he received as 
a student were erroneous.  As evidence, he pointed out that he has not received a mark 
of 3 since he left the xxxx, and his marks in recent OERs have averaged above 4.4.  The 
applicant further alleged that he is now filling an O-4 billet even though he is only an O-
2 and that the OERs he has received for this work show that he is “a good performer 
and a quick learner.”  

  

RELEVANT REGULATIONS 

 

Student Engineering Program (SEP) 
 

COMDTINST M3502.11 contains the rules for the administration of the SEP and 
 
the requirements that constitute “the minimum standard for certification to engineering 
duty afloat.”  It was issued on August 8, 1991.   
 
 
 

Paragraph 3 of the instruction states as follows: 

b. 
. . .  Officers assigned to this program shall complete Parts “A” and “B” 
per this instruction.  Cutter deployments and/or lengthy maintenance availabil-
ities may make completing Parts “A” and “B” in order difficult;  however, initial 
emphasis  shall  be  placed  on  Part  “A”  with  adjustments as necessary to fit the 
cutter’s  schedule  and  the  student’s  progress.    OOD  qualification  may  be 
obtained  any  time  during  the  training  period,  but  the  officer’s  Student 
Engineering Program shall not be deemed fully complete until this requirement 
is met. . . . 
 
c. 
Assignment as Student Engineer is their primary duty.  They shall not be 
assigned any major collateral duty, such as Training Officer, Exchange Officer, 
Morale Officer, etc., except in cases of emergency.  Additionally, they shall not 
be assigned any major collateral duty until after the six month period associated 
with completion of Part “A” to ensure a maximum benefit is derived from this 
portion  of  instruction.    During  the  period  associated  with  Part  “B”,  collateral 
duty  assignments  of  a  nonengineering  nature,  if  made,  shall  be  held to a bare 
minimum. 

 
 
According to Paragraph 5.a.(2)(a), “[t]he emphasis during Part “A” [Cutter Engi-
neering Indoctrination] is upon learning practical shipboard engineering fundamentals 
. . .  .    Administrative  work  or  large  reading  assignments  not  directly  concerned  with 
equipment operation and/or maintenance should not be allowed to interfere with the 
required PQS.” 
 
 
According to Paragraph 5.a.(2)(b), Part A should be completed in approximately 
six months, but “taskings listed in this manual may be varied at the discretion of the 
Engineer Officer.” 
 
 
Paragraph  5.a.(2)(c)  requires  students  to  maintain  a  notebook  with  written 
answers to the questions posed in the SEP Instruction, “a copy of Damage Control PQS 
annotated with correct answers, shipboard watch qualification check-off sheets, and all 
engineering system drawings required for the various levels of watch qualification.” 
 
 
watches (4 hours on and 12 hours off) at sea … .”  
 
Paragraph 5.a.(3)(b) requires the Engineer Officer to “develop, instruct and pro-
 
vide frequent feedback to the student engineer regarding progress . . . .  It cannot be 
stressed  enough  that  the  success  of  this  program  hinges  on  the  Engineer  Officer’s 
involvement.”  It also requires the Engineer Officer to conduct monthly counseling ses-

Paragraph 5.a.(3)(a).3. states that student engineers “shall … [s]tand engineering 

sions to review the student’s notebook and progress.  The commanding officer is also 
advised to review the student’s notebook on a quarterly basis. 
 
 
Paragraph  5.b.(2)(a)  states  that  “[o]fficers  who  complete  Part  ‘A’  and  who  are 
deemed  otherwise  qualified  will  be  permitted  to  continue  with  Part  ‘B’.”    Paragraph 
5.b.(2)(b) states that “[t]he emphasis during Part ‘B’ is on the administrative aspects, but 
will  also  include,  through  watchstanding,  practical  application  of  the  fundamentals 
learned  during  Part  ‘A’.”    Paragraph  5.b.(2)(c)  recommends  that  Part  “B”  be  finished 
within eight months, but permits the “sequence of the taskings listed in this manual [to] 
be  varied  at  the  discretion  of  the  Commanding  Officer  per  recommendations  of  the 
Engineer Officer.” 
 
 
Paragraph  5.b.(3)  requires  students,  while  completing  Part  B,  to  “[c]ontinue 
standing  engineering  watches  until  qualified  as  an  underway  EOW.    Upon  attaining 
this level of qualification, the Student Engineer may enter the normal engineering watch 
rotation as dictated by the needs of the command.” 
 
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  dimen-
sions,  the  Reporting  Officer  shall  carefully  read  the  standards  and  com-
pare  the  Reported-on  Officer’s  performance  to  the  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 devi-
ates from a “4.”  The Reporting Officer shall draw on his/her own obser-
vations,  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. 
. . . 

 
 
Article  10-A-2(d)(3)  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  use  of  Officer  Support 
Forms (OSFs) is mandatory for all evaluations of ensigns and lieutenants junior grade.  
Article 10-A-2(d)(2) provides that supervisors shall use the OSFs to counsel and evalu-
ate the reported-on officers. 
 
Replies to OERs 
 
 
Article 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.” 
 

SUMMARY OF  THE RECORD 

 

 
 
The applicant graduated from the Coast Guard Academy and was commissioned 
an ensign in May 199x.  On August 27, 199x, he reported aboard the xxxx as an engi-
neering student.  
 
 
A  memorandum  dated  August  29,  199x,  indicates  that  the  applicant  was 
assigned  as  the  xxxx’s  Engineering  Administrative  Assistant  upon  his  arrival  on  the 
cutter and that the cutter was then missing many technical publications. 
 
On January 22, 199x, the applicant qualified as a security watchstander. On Feb-
 
ruary 10, 199x, his commanding officer commended him for completing Damage Con-
trol  PQS  and  drawings  of  the  ship’s  firemain,  installed  drainage,  and  installed  AFFF 
systems.    On  February  27,  199x,  the  applicant  qualified  for  the  generator  watch.    On 
April 11, 199x, the applicant qualified for the auxiliary watch.  On April 24, 199x, the 
applicant qualified as a duty damage controlman and duty electrician. 
 
The  applicant’s  Student  Engineer  Monthly  Meeting  Check-Off  Sheet  indicates 
 
that the applicant’s supervisor did not formally counsel him in accordance with the SEP 
requirements after April 199x. 
 
 
the Damage Control Assistant course and the Advanced Fire Fighting course. 
 
 
On October 29, 199x, the applicant qualified as a fuel, oil, and water king.  On 
December 11, 199x, he qualified as a rigid boat inflatable hull engineer and a motor surf 
boat engineer.  

On  June  19, 199x, the applicant’s commanding officer noted that he completed 

On April 3, 199x, the applicant finished the SEP.  His tour of duty on the xxxx 

ended three months later. 
 
The  First Disputed OER (OER1) 
 
 
OER1  shows  that,  in  addition  to  his  duties  as  a  student  to  “complete  all  ship-
board qualifications,” he was assigned to serve as the EAA until January 199x and as 
such was responsible for maintenance of the engineering logs and forms.  Overall, the 
applicant earned three marks of 5, seventeen marks of 4, one mark of 3, and two marks 
of N/O.  On the Comparison Scale, he was rated a 4.2   There is a significant amount of 
blank space left in some of the comment sections of OER1. 
 
 
In block 3, Performance of Duties, the applicant received a mark of 3 for Respon-
siveness,  and  a  mark  of  N/O  for  Warfare  Expertise.    The  corresponding  comments 
include the following statements: 
 

Initial  slow  progress  in  student engineering program improved toward end of 
period, completing qualifications to underway auxiliary watch and making pro-
gress on AEOW/EOW qualification.  Has difficulty reaching goals set by super-
visor, but completed work of high quality.  Prepared engineering files for MLC 
PAC  administrative  inspection  which  was  passed  smoothly  as  a  result  of  his 
efforts.  Completely reorganized ship’s drawing inventory, making it usable for 
crew. . . .  Student engineering work completed so far has been of top quality.  
Spent several hours daily working on engineering repair and maintenance items.  
In  spite  of  ship’s  schedule  preventing  any  formal  training,  completed  damage 
control qualifications and became a contributing member to xxxx’s damage con-
trol team.  Conducted many successful training sessions; notable one for senior 
personnel which drew praise from the XO. 

 

 

 
 
In  block  4,  Interpersonal  Relations,  the  comments  note  that  he  “[h]as  actively 
supported fair treatment of others by volunteering to be teacher’s assistant at inner-city 
elementary school.”    
 
 
In block 8, the reporting officer simply stated “I concur with [the supervisor’s] 
evaluations.”    In  the  comments  for  block  9,  Personal  Qualities,  the  reporting  officer 
wrote that “[the applicant’s] preparation of engineering files, obtaining course materials 
and assumption of lay leader duties showed good initiative and a sense of responsibil-
ity.    These  were  somewhat  offset  by  his  slowness  in  completing  student  engineering 
requirements.”    In  the  comments  for  block  10,  Representing  the  Coast  Guard,  the 
reporting officer stated that the applicant “rarely deals with the public.”  He made the 
following statements in block 11, Leadership and Potential: 
                                                 
2  The Comparison Scale is not actually numbered but permits seven possible marks.  The fourth position 
is  the  middle  one  of  the  three  center  marks  labeled  as  “one  of  the  many  competent  professionals  who 
form the majority of this grade.” 

 

This is [the applicant’s] first OER.  Though he was somewhat slow in completing 
portions  of  the  student  engineering  program,  he  has  shown  improvement 
toward  the  end  of  the  period.    His  continuing  interest  in  the  ship  and  high-
quality  work  will  make him a valuable member of the crew and officer corps.  
He is fully qualified for promotion to xxxxx. 

 
The Second Disputed OER (OER2) 
 
 
In OER2, the applicant’s duties in addition to being a student engineer are listed 
as Repair II Locker Leader, Auxiliary Division Officer, and Fueling Officer.  As a Locker 
Leader, the applicant completed “several drills during xxxx’s recent REFTRA.”  Overall, 
the applicant received two marks of 5, seventeen marks of 4, three marks of 3, and one 
mark of N/O.  He received a mark of 3 on the Comparison Scale.  There is a significant 
amount of blank space left in some of the comment sections in OER2. 
 
 
In block 3, Performance of Duties, the applicant received marks of 3 for Getting 
Results  and  Responsiveness  and  a  mark  of  N/O  for  Warfare  Expertise.    The  corre-
sponding comments include the following statements: 
 

As student engineer maintained slow rate of progress in qual[ifications] despite 
constant reminders and counseling sessions.  Still working on Part A.  Capable of 
producing high quality work . . . .  Made vast improvements to divisional record-
keeping accountability . . . .  Had difficulty meeting deadlines, and often had to 
be  prompted  to  increase  productivity  and  output.    Rarely  kept  chain  of  com-
mand  informed  about  casualties  and/or  repairs.  .  .  .    Improved  efficiency  of 
refueling team . . . .  Completed qual[ifications] through I/P EOW during recent 
patrol. . . . 

 
 
In  block  8,  the  reporting  officer  wrote  “Concur  with  supervisor’s  marks  and 
comments.  I have observed [the applicant] for only 2 months, but that time was spent 
deployed on a xxxxx Patrol.” 
 
 
The corresponding comments are as follows: 
 

In block 9, Personal Qualities, the applicant received a mark of 3 for Initiative.  

Has yet to complete Part A of his student engineering PQS.  Qualified as inport 
and  underway  EOW  in  Sep  92  after  almost  16  months  on  board.    Efforts  to 
improve fueling were effective due to his efforts.  [Emphasis added.] 

  
 
In  the  comments  for  block  10,  Representing  the  Coast  Guard,  the  reporting 
officer wrote that the applicant had “[a]bly represented the Coast Guard at a reception 
for VIP’s in xxxxxx and during the xxxx.” 
 
 
cant as follows: 

In block 11, Leadership and Potential, the reporting officer described the appli-

[The applicant] is a quiet young officer who has been slow in working to com-
plete Part A of his student engineer PQS.  His work has improved greatly this 
period and he has proven that he can get the job done when properly motivated.  
With further work and improvement, he should be ready for promotion to LT 
with his peers. 

 
First Affidavit of the Engineer Officer 
 
 
The  Engineer  Officer  who  administered  the  applicant’s  SEP  and  served  as  the 
supervisor for the two disputed OERs submitted the following statements on the appli-
cant’s behalf: 
 

 

. . .  During the marking periods, I met with [the applicant] to review his marks, 
to ensure he understood them, and to counsel him for future performance.  At 
those sessions, he questioned certain marks and comments that I made, indicat-
ing that they might have an adverse effect on his career.  He believed that they 
would  prevent  him  from  selection  for  Lieutenant,  but  I  advised  him  that  he 
could “recover” from these marks with superior performance. 
 
I presented what I consider to be a fair evaluation of [the applicant’s] perform-
ance and skills.  I did that in accordance with the Coast Guard Marking System, 
as I understood it.  I have since come to believe that my understanding of the 
Coast Guard Marking System at the time was not in agreement with the Coast 
Guard’s norm. 
 
As Engineer Officer aboard CGC xxxx, I evaluated four (4) student engineer offi-
cers.    Their  ship  experience  was  the  first  unit  each  of  them  had  after  being 
commissioned.  All four of them were passed-over for selection to xxxxxx. 
 
Ten “first-tour” officers reported to CGC xxxx while I was the Engineer Officer.  
Nine of them have now been passed-over for xxx and it is my belief that it was a 
direct result of their ship-tour evaluations. 
 
It  was  not  my  intent  to  mark  in  accordance  with  any  other  standard  than  the 
Coast Guard’s norm.  It was not my intent that their evaluations would make it 
virtually impossible for them to be competitive with their peers in consideration 
for promotion to xxx. 
 
I believe that several key items, such as low numeric scores and incomplete com-
ments section remarks, sent an unintended message to the Promotion Board. 
 
Although I believe I tried to meet the “letter” of the Coast Guard’s Evaluation 
System, my comments and numeric marks for the Junior Officers, and [the appli-
cant]  in  particular,  reflected  lower  performance  than  I  meant  to  convey.    This 
appears to have been a ship-wide problem, since it is extremely unusual for 90% 
of the Junior Officers who have served at a Command to be passed-over. 
 

 
Second Affidavit of the Engineer Officer 
 
 
supervisor on the xxxx: 
 

The  Coast  Guard  submitted  the  following  affidavit,  also  from  the  applicant’s 

I  urge  the  Board  for  Correction  of  Military  Records to correct [the applicant’s] 
record so that he can be competitive with his peers in the promotion process. 

a. 
[The applicant] started the SEP on CGC xxxx when he reported on board.  
I expected that while the ship was inport that he would work on the parts of the 
program  that  could  be  done  inport.    During  this  time  frame  he  could  have 
completed system drawings and reviewed technical materials.  If this was done 
it would have expedited his qualification process and changed my evaluation. 
 
b. 
The SEP monthly counseling log was started in Aug 9x.  In those counsel-
ing sessions we would review his work on the program.  I would answer ques-
tions.  During these sessions I reviewed his SEP notebook. 
 
c. 
[The applicant] was told in these sessions that there were things that he 
could be working on for Part A of his SEP prior to the first patrol in Jan 9x.  His 
progress  through  the  program  was  slow  and  difficult.    He  had problems with 
watch  qualification  and  trouble  with  engineering  concepts.    I  frequently  dis-
cussed [the applicant’s] qualification and SEP progress with the Chief and Senior 
Petty  Officers.    They  were  responsible  for  training  personnel  during  their 
watches.  I understood the revised SEP as described in the COMDTINST. 
 
d. 
I don’t remember telling [the applicant] when he reported that comple-
tion of his inport EOW would suffice as research for Part A questions; therefore 
he would not have to write out answers for the questions.  I do remember being 
surprised by the amount of written work that was required, and I knew that this 
was part of the program. 
 
e. 
xxxx’s  schedule  would  have  made  underway  watch  qualification  dif-
ficult, but this was not unique to xxxx.  I knew that [the applicant] could work on 
Part  B  if  the  ship’s  schedule  prevented  the  completion  of  Part  A  first.    I  also 
knew  that  [the  applicant’s]  work  as  Engineer  Admin  Assistant  was  applicable 
towards some of his Part B completion.  I considered this in my assessment in 
the first OER that his progress on completion of SEP was slow. 
 
f. 
I placed [the applicant] on a port/starboard watch schedule during the 
first patrol because I thought that his progress was slow and that more time on 
watch would help him to progress.  Also, watch rotation was used as a tool to 
encourage  prompt  qualification within the department, [and] it was important 
that  all  personnel  be  treated  the  same.    Finally, the amount of underway time 
available to the [applicant] was limited and I wanted to ensure he made the most 
of it.  In retrospect I do not think that the port/starboard watch rotation helped 
[the applicant]. 
 

g. 
[The applicant’s] readiness to sit for the Aux Systems qualification board 
in Mar 9x was considered in my assessment of his SEP progress.  I don’t recall 
why his appearance before this board was held after his 31 Mar reporting period. 
 
I did not feel that the use of the formal Officer Support Form (OSF) was 
h. 
necessary, since I met with him regularly to review his performance in the SEP; 
communication during these meetings was not limited to only the SEP.  I also sat 
as an observer during his qualification boards, and I supervised him during the 
conduct of Engineering Plant drills.  During the review of his SEP performance 
he  would  receive  private  counseling.    After  qualification  boards  he  would  be 
debriefed  on  his  performance.    After  drills  he  would  be  debriefed  as  a  team 
member.  I felt that this counseling surpassed the requirements of the OSF. 

 
Affidavit of the Applicant’s Current Commanding Officer 
 
 
The applicant’s current commanding officer, a captain stationed at Coast Guard 
headquarters detached to the xxxxxx Command, submitted the following statements on 
behalf of the applicant: 
 

CGC xxxx, xxxx, and xxx are all 378’ Secretary Class Cutters and from an 

2. 
I  have  been  [the  applicant’s]  commanding  officer  since  May  199x.    His 
performance in this time period is accurately documented in his OERs reviewed 
by me.  His performance in my command is in stark contrast to that documented 
by xxxx. … 
 
4. 
I  was  a  student  engineer  in  CGC  xx  from  197x-197x.    I  also  was  the 
Engineer Officer (EO) of CGC xxx from June 198x to June 198x and administered 
the student engineering program to eleven junior officers.   
 
5. 
engineering standpoint are nearly the same.  
 
6. 
In 199x, Coast Guard Naval Engineering issued a new student engineer-
ing program, which was very similar to the old in general requirements, but in 
addition,  required  written  answers  to  specific  and  standard  engineering  ques-
tions where the old did not.  However both the old and new programs require 
significant attention and mentoring by the Engineer Officer (EO) for the program 
to succeed in its objective. 
 
7. 
In general, student engineering is divided up into two major parts:  Part 
A  is  geared  towards  learning  shipboard  engineering  watch  requirements  and 
tracing systems.  Part B is predominantly focused on engineering administration. 
 
8. 
From  what  the  records  show,  it  appears  that  when  [the  applicant] 
reported  aboard  xxxx,  the  first  four  to  five  months  were  spent  inport  with  no 
underway  time.    This  time  inport  is  ideally  suited  for  the  student  engineer  to 
begin some of Part B because most inport periods see a great deal of admin.  Fur-
ther it is extremely difficult if not impossible to complete Part A in the time rec-
ommended  by  the  program  if  the  ship  is  not  underway.    One  can’t  very  well 

qualify for underway watches while inport.  The prudent mentor would restruc-
ture the student engineering program to accommodate this factor.  In fact, my 
EO  did  change  the  program  for  me  and  my  classmate  for  this  very  reason  in 
197x-7x.  It was unfortunate that when [the applicant] reported aboard there was 
not a seasoned EO to act as mentor and get him and his classmate off to a good 
start.    And  whatever  orders  or  guidance  were  given,  two  months  or  so  later 
when  the  EO  arrived,  new  direction  was  given  and  that  direction  did  not 
account for the long inport either.  So when OER time came, and Part A should 
have  been  completed  under  normal  circumstances,  [the  applicant]  had  not 
completed it.  Given the long inport for the first five months of [the applicant’s] 
career,  it  realistically  should  not  have  been  expected.    In  my  opinion,  the  EO 
should  have 
the  expected 
underway/inport  schedule,  and  marked  [the  applicant]  according  to  the  new 
plan. 
 
In  reviewing  [the  applicant’s]  OERs  from  xxxx,  my  first  thought  was, 
9. 
“Why didn’t the XO or CO discuss these OERs with the EO and member before 
submitting it?”  Any CAPT or CDR in the Coast Guard should have known that 
these marks and remarks were certain to be detrimental in a promotion board.  
And yet it did not appear that any effort was made by the command to validate 
the marks and comments as accurate.  As it turned out, almost the entire junior 
officer corps of the wardroom faced the same problem.  Given the general marks 
on the ship, how would an xxx or xxx be aware that the marks he was just given 
would almost certainly get him passed over for xxxx? 

the  entire  program 

restructured 

fit 

to 

 
Calendar of the Applicant’s Tour on the xxxx 
 

SEP 

OCT 

NOV 

DEC 

 

 

JAN 
                      

FEB 

 
       A* 

 

 

                    
      A** 

 
       B* 

 

 

 

 

AUG 

 
Report  
8/28/9x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

YR 
9x-9x 

9x-9x 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

MAR 

APR 

 

 
SEP 
done 
4/3/9x 

MAY 

 

 

 

 

JUN 

JUL 

 

 
Leave 
7/2/9x 

Reporting period for first disputed OER 
 
 
Reporting period for second disputed OER 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

A* = SEP recommended completion date for 
 
A**= Date applicant completed most of  

Part A 

 

Part A and began Part B 

xxxx primarily in port with applicant on board B* = SEP recommended completion date for  
 
xxxx primarily underway with applicant on board 
 
 
Applicant away at school while xxxx underway  

Part  B 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

Advisory Opinion of the Chief Counsel 
 
 
On  February  18,  1999,  the  Chief  Counsel  of  the  Coast  Guard  recommended 
denial of the applicant’s request for lack of proof.  He argued that the following stan-
dards should apply: 
 

To establish that an OER is erroneous or unjust, the applicant must show a mis-
statement of a significant hard fact or a clear violation of a statute or regulation.  
Germano v. United States, 26 Cl. Ct. 1446, 1460 (199x); CGBCMR Dkt. No. 86-96.  
In  determining  whether  the  applicant  has  met  this  burden,  Applicant’s  rating 
officials  are  strongly  presumed  to  have  acted  correctly,  lawfully,  and  in  good 
faith in executing their duties.  Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (199x); 
Sanders  v.  United  States,  594  F.2d  804,  813  (Ct.  Cl.  1979).    Moreover,  to  be 
entitled to relief, the Applicant must not only prove error or injustice, but also 
must make at least a prima facie showing of harm to his record as a result of that 
error.    See,  e.g.,  Engels  v.  United  States,  230  Ct.  Cl.  464,  470  (1982).    Absent  a 
showing that error or injustice affected the challenged record, it is inappropriate 
for the Board to change the evaluations of those responsible for evaluating the 
reported-on  officer  under  Coast  Guard  regulations.    See,  e.g.,  Opinion  of  the 
Deputy  General  Counsel  in  CGBCMR  Dkt.  No.  84-96,  citing  Grieg  v.  United 
States, 640 F.2d 1261 (Ct. Cl. 1981). 

 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  alleged  that  the  applicant  failed  to  meet  these  standards 
because the evidence “demonstrates that the challenged OERs represent the honest pro-
fessional  judgment  of  those  responsible  for  evaluating  Applicant  under  the  Coast 
Guard Officer Evaluation System.”  He argued that the record shows that the applicant 
received  fair  and  objective  OERs  from  his  rating  chains.    “Applicant’s  statement  is 
replete with his own characterizations of conduct, but he has failed to prove by a pre-
ponderance of the evidence that an error or an injustice [exists] in the disputed OERs.” 
 
 
The Chief Counsel alleged that the applicant’s supervisor had properly adminis-
tered his SEP.  He attached to his advisory opinion a copy of a memorandum from the 
Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC) which comes to this conclusion (see below).  
The  Chief  Counsel  further  alleged  that,  in  his  application  to  the  Board,  the  applicant 
mischaracterized the nature of his duties under the SEP.  He argued that the supervisor 
had set reasonable goals for the applicant at their initial meeting in August 199x and 
that  the  applicant  had  failed  to  meet  those  goals.    The  supervisor’s  evaluation  of  the 
applicant in light of that failure should not be reversed by the board absent proof of a 
factual or legal error. 
 
 
Furthermore,  the  Chief  Counsel  pointed  out  that  the  applicant  had  failed  to 
“exercise his right to submit OER replies to the two disputed OERs.”  This failure, the 
Chief Counsel argued, “may be considered as evidence that he accepted the rating offi-
cial’s characterization of the performance described in those OERs.” 
 

Regarding the effect of the disputed OERs on the applicant’s failures of selection, 
 
the Chief Counsel chose not to submit a “nexus analysis” in the interests of administra-
tive efficiency but offered to do so should the Board find that one of both of the dis-
puted OERs were erroneous.  
 
Memorandum of the Coast Guard Personnel Command 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  attached  to  his  advisory  opinion  a  memorandum  from  the 
 
Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC).  The memorandum stated that “[w]hile the 
guidance provides flexibility for completion of some Part ‘B’ requirements due to the 
cutter’s deployment schedule, the Supervisor was not in error in requiring Applicant to 
make progress on his Part ‘A’ during the four month inport period.”  CGPC argued that 
making progress on Part A during the xxxx’s time in port was feasible and a reasonable 
expectation of the Supervisor.  Furthermore, CGPC stated that, in an affidavit submitted 
by CGPC with its memorandum, the applicant’s supervisor contradicted the applicant’s 
allegation that his supervisor told him he would not have to complete the written parts 
of  Part  A.    CGPC  argued  that  it  was  the  applicant’s  responsibility  to  clarify  any 
discrepancy between the SEP requirements and his supervisor’s requirements, and the 
applicant did not do this.   
 
 
CGPC stated that the applicant’s assignment as Engineer Administrative Assis-
tant  and  Damage  Control  Personnel  Qualification  Standards  officer  was  not  in  viola-
tions of Article 3.c. of the SEP because the duties were “related to applicant’s student 
engineer  program  and  were  considered  by the Supervisor in his assessment of appli-
cant’s  SEP  progress  in  his  evaluation.”    CGPC  also stated that the applicant’s assign-
ment  to  port  and  starboard  watch  duty  was  within  his  Supervisor’s  discretion,  was 
intended to further his progress, and was not in violation of Article 5.a.(3)(a)3. of the 
SEP  even  though  it  is  more  stringent  than  the  prescribed  watches.    CGPC  concluded 
that the “[a]pplicant did not provide convincing evidence to support his contention that 
his  [SEP]  was  administered  incorrectly  by  his  Supervisor,  or  that  if  it  was,  that  it 
resulted in an inaccurate evaluation of his performance.” 
 
 
Regarding the first disputed OER, CGPC stated that it is not clear in the OERs 
whether  the  “applicant’s  interpretation  of  how  to  complete  the  answers  for  Part  ‘A’ 
affected his evaluation of his performance.”  CGPC pointed out that in his affidavit, the 
applicant’s supervisor stated that he did take into account in OER1 that the applicant 
was ready to sit for the Auxiliary Systems qualification board even though the board 
was not held until after the reporting period ended.  CGPC further stated that the low 
marks  in  the  two  disputed  OERs  are  amply  supported  by  the  comments  and  by  the 
supervisor’s remarks in his affidavit that the applicant’s progress was “slow and diffi-
cult.”  CGPC also stated that the mark of “not observed” that the applicant received for 
Warfare  Expertise  is  “a  neutral  evaluation  that  should  not  be  held  for  or  against  the 
Reported-on  Officer.”    There  is  no  evidence,  CGPC  alleged,  that  the  reviewer  for  the 
OERs did not do his job. 

 
 
Regarding the supervisor’s failure to use the Officer Support Form (OSF), CGPC 
argued that “there is no proof that failure on the part of the Supervisor to use the spe-
cified OSF form caused an error in applicant’s evaluation.”  CGPC further stated that, 
although  documentation  of  formal  counseling  ceased  during  the  second  reporting 
period, the “applicant himself states that verbal counseling continued during the second 
OER  period,”  and  the  supervisor’s  affidavit  also  indicates  that  counseling  continued.  
Finally,  CGPC  stated  that  OERs  may  legitimately  provide  reported-on  officers  with 
incentive to improve their performance, and the supervisor’s mention of this fact “does 
not mean that the OERs were not accurate assessments of applicant’s performance, nor 
does it invalidate the two OERs.”  CGPC concluded that the “[a]pplicant did not pro-
vide  convincing  evidence  to  support  his  contention  that  there  was  administrative 
irregularity  in  the  OER  completion  process  for  his  two  contested  OERs,  or  that  if  it 
existed, resulted in his being evaluated unfairly.” 
 
 
CGPC admitted that the comment in OER2 indicating that as of September 199x, 
the  applicant  had  been  on  board  the  xxxx  for  16  months  was  wrong.    CGPC  recom-
mended that the comment “after almost 16 months on board” be removed.  CGPC also 
admitted that the comment concerning the applicant’s performance at a reception dur-
ing the xxxx race may have been wrong, but stated that removal of the comment is not 
in the applicant’s best interest. 
 
 
Regarding the effect of the disputed OERs on the applicant’s failures of selection, 
CGPC  stated  that  the  applicant’s  record  would  appear  significantly  stronger  without 
the two disputed OERs.  Therefore, if the Board were to disagree with the Coast Guard 
and remove the OERs, the applicant’s failures of selection should also be removed. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On February 24, 1999, the Chairman sent a copy of the views of the Coast Guard 
to the applicant and invited him to respond within 15 days.  The applicant’s attorney 
asked for several extensions of this time and responded on July 29, 1999. 
 
 
In  his  response  to  the  advisory  opinion,  the  applicant  argued  that  the  Chief 
Counsel’s dependence upon the “presumption of regularity” ascribed to Coast Guard 
officers does not overcome the regulatory requirement that OERs be fair and accurate. 
Moreover, the presumption is overcome since the applicant’s supervisor has admitted 
that the discretion exercised in administering the SEP program and evaluating the jun-
ior officers on the xxxx resulted in 90 percent of them being passed over for promotion.  
He stated that the honesty of the rating chain is beside the point because he was being 
evaluated “on the basis of erroneous duty standards.” 
 

The applicant submitted an affidavit from his current commanding officer (see 
below) alleging that the administration of the applicant’s SEP program was faulty.  He 

stated  that  because  his  SEP  was  wrongly  administered,  and  he  was  evaluated  on  the 
basis of his inability to fulfill incorrect and impossible expectations, the disputed OERs 
are inaccurate and should be removed from his record.   

 
The applicant also stated that his failure to file OER replies should not be held 
against him as he “was misled into believing that the marks he was assigned were not 
detrimental and he was unaware of any need to respond to them.” 

 
In response to CGPC’s memorandum, the applicant stated that in OER1 the com-
ments do not support the mark of 3 he received in block 3.d.  Therefore, a mark of at 
least 4 should have been assigned.  The applicant also stated that the errors in the dis-
puted  OERs  concerning  how  long  he  had  served  on  the  xxxx  and  whether  he  had 
assisted at the xxxx reception are evidence of “the general degree of inaccuracy” in the 
challenged OERs.  Furthermore, he stated that, because the Personnel Manual requires 
an  OER  reviewer  to  ensure  the  accuracy  of  the  OER,  it  is  clear  that  the  applicant’s 
reviewer did not do his job.  Finally, the applicant argued that the statements made by 
his supervisor regarding the accuracy of his evaluation of the applicant in the affidavit 
submitted by the Coast Guard are contradicted in the supervisor’s first affidavit, which 
was submitted by the applicant, in which he admits that the rating of junior officers on 
the xxxx must have been incorrect. 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

2. 

3. 

1. 

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 appli-
cable 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 C.F.R. § 52.31, denied the request and recommended disposition 
of the case without a hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommendation. 
 
The applicant alleged that two OERs he received while serving aboard the 
 
xxxx  should  be  removed  because  they  are  inaccurate.    He  alleged  that  they  are  inac-
curate because certain low marks were not supported by comments.  The Board finds 
that the numerical marks in the two disputed OERs are sufficiently supported by the 
corresponding comments.   
 

With regard to OER1, the applicant alleged that it is inaccurate because it 
states that he rarely dealt with the public, whereas he had volunteered at a local ele-
mentary  school  and  received  a  Humanitarian  Service  Medal  for  volunteering  to  help 
during an October 199x fire.  In addition, OER1 contains a significant amount of blank 

4. 

5. 

6. 

space in the sections for written comments.  In the Board’s experience, so much blank 
space is unusual and prejudicial to the reported-on officer.  The excessive blank space 
and the inaccurate remark about the applicant’s work with the public are evidence that 
the OER1 was carelessly prepared and does not fully document the applicant’s perform-
ance. 
 
 
With regard to OER2, the applicant alleged that it is inaccurate because it 
states that he had been on board 16 months at the end of the reporting period and that 
he had worked on the xxxx reception.  In fact, he had been on board for only 13 months.  
Furthermore, at the time of the xxxx reception, he was away at school.  The applicant 
alleged that these errors prove OER2 was not properly reviewed.  The Board finds that 
these errors indicate that OER2 was carelessly prepared.  Moreover, OER2 included the 
inaccurate  and  very  prejudicial  comment  “Has  yet  to  complete  Part  A  of  his  student 
engineering  PQS.    Qualified  as  inport  and  underway  EOW  in  SEP  9x after almost 16 
months on board.”  This  exaggerated the slowness of the applicant’s qualification for 
watches and strongly implied that the applicant had ample underway time in which to 
qualify for watches and complete Part A of the SEP.  At the end of the second reporting 
period, the applicant had been on board for only 13 months, less than 5 of which were 
spent underway.  The SEP Instruction recommends that Part A be completed within 6 
months. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that both OER1 and OER2 wrongly indicate that his 
rating chain had no occasion to observe his warfare expertise.  The applicant’s supervi-
sor could have assigned him numerical marks for the category Warfare Expertise in the 
two  disputed  OERs  based  on  his  performance  during  training  for  fire  fighting  and 
damage  control.    However,  the  supervisor’s  decision  to  mark  the  category  “not 
observed,” in the absence of actual combat experience, is not clearly erroneous.  In the 
Board’s experience, a mark of “not observed” for the category Wartime Expertise is so 
common as to be expected and, therefore, is not at all prejudicial to members.  Further-
more, the applicant’s training that would have provided the basis for a numerical mark 
in this category was cited in other parts of the disputed OERs. 
 
 
 The applicant’s supervisor admitted that he did not make use of the OSF 
forms submitted by the applicant for either OER1 or OER2 to evaluate and counsel him 
as  required  by  Article  10-A-2(d)(3)  of  the  Personnel  Manual.    The  supervisor  alleged 
that he was sufficiently familiar with the applicant’s performance to obviate the use of 
OSFs.  However, the supervisor’s statement is unconvincing given the errors and blank 
spaces in the disputed OERs.  Therefore, the Board finds that the supervisor’s failure to 
use the OSFs as required may have unjustly caused the disputed OERs to reflect unfa-
vorably on the applicant’s performance. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that the low marks and supporting comments in the 
disputed OERs reflect his inability to fulfill his supervisor’s unreasonable expectation 
that  he  complete  Parts  A  and  B  of  the  SEP  in  the  prescribed  order.    The  applicant 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

alleged  that  his  supervisor’s  expectations  were  unreasonable  because  the  xxxx’s 
schedule  did  not  permit  him  to  complete  Part  A  within  the  recommended  time  and 
because the supervisor did not permit him to start on Part B prior to Part A, in accor-
dance with the SEP Instruction that provides for such flexibility when a cutter’s sched-
ule precludes the usual order. 
 
The xxxx was in port for the first four and one-half months of the appli-
 
cant’s tour.  Therefore, the applicant alleged, his supervisor should have instructed him 
to  work  on  Part  B,  credited  his  work  as  EAA  toward  completion  of  Part  B,  and 
evaluated him in OER1 on that basis.  The SEP Instruction stated that “initial emphasis 
shall be placed on Part ‘A’ with adjustments as necessary to fit the cutter’s schedule and 
the student’s progress.”  In light of (a) the flexibility allowed in the SEP, (b) the xxxx’s 
long inport schedule, and (c) the applicant’s assignment to the major collateral duty of 
EAA, which work could have counted toward the completion of Part B of the SEP, the 
Board finds that the applicant’s supervisor acted unreasonably in refusing to permit any 
of his EAA duties to count toward completion of Part B. 
 

The applicant alleged that he received poor marks and comments in OER1 
because his supervisor wrongly expected him to have progressed further on Part A of 
the  SEP  than  was  physically  possible  given  the  xxxx’s  schedule,  his  appointment  as 
EAA and DCPQS officer, and his assignment to port and starboard duty.  The appli-
cant’s supervisor admitted in his first affidavit that the applicant was downgraded in 
OER1 for not having progressed fast enough on Part A.  However, while the xxxx was 
in  port,  the  applicant  was  assigned  the  major  collateral  duties  of  EAA  and  DCPQS 
officer.  And by the end of the reporting period for OER1, the xxxx had been underway 
for only two months.  During those two months, the applicant qualified for the security, 
generator, and auxiliary watches, although the auxiliary watch board was delayed until 
after the reporting period ended.  The applicant also qualified as a duty damage con-
trolman  and  duty  electrician  soon  after  the  reporting  period  for  OER1  ended.    These 
watch qualifications were completed while the applicant was assigned to port and star-
board duty, a clear violation of Paragraph 5.a.(3)(a)3. of the SEP Instruction.  In light of 
these  circumstances,  the  Board  finds  that  the  applicant’s  supervisor  unfairly  down-
graded  his  performance  in  OER1  for  not  having  progressed  further  on  Part  A  of  the 
SEP.    The  Board  finds  that  the  applicant’s  slow  progress  on  Part  A  during  the  first 
reporting period was due to no fault of his own, but to the xxxx’s inport schedule and 
the applicant’s assignment to major collateral duties during inport time and to port and 
starboard  watches  during  underway  time.    It  was  unjust  for  the  applicant  to  be 
downgraded in OER1 on this basis. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that he received poor marks and comments in OER2 
because his supervisor wrongly expected him to have progressed more quickly on Parts 
A  and  B  of  the  SEP  than  was  physically  possible  given  the  xxxx’s  schedule,  the 
applicant’s attendance at DCA school during rare underway time, and an unforeseen 
number of written answers required for completion of Part A.  The applicant alleged 

11. 

12. 

that when he arrived on the xxxx, his supervisor told him he would not have to provide 
written answers to Part A because “all research called for in Part ‘A’ would be covered 
in the watch qualification process.”  The supervisor does not remember this but does 
remember being “surprised” at how much written work was required, although he also 
claimed to have “understood the revised SEP” prior to administering it.  OER2 clearly 
indicates  that  the  applicant  was  downgraded  for  not  completing  Part  A.    Yet  he  had 
experienced only 5 months of underway time, when the SEP Instruction suggests that 
Part A should be completed within 6 months. 
 
 
The applicant also alleged that he was not sufficiently counseled concern-
ing  his  progress  on  the  SEP.    The  applicant’s  supervisor  failed  to  sign  the  monthly 
check-off sheet throughout the second reporting period.  Furthermore, the supervisor 
also failed to use the required OSF forms to counsel the applicant.  The record shows 
that the applicant received very little one-on-one counseling concerning his progress in 
the  SEP  program,  as  required  by  Paragraph  5.a.(3)(b)  of the SEP Instruction.  Yet the 
SEP Instruction states that “[i]t cannot be stressed enough that the success of this pro-
gram hinges on the Engineer Officer’s involvement.”  The affidavit from the applicant’s 
current commanding officer, who has intimate knowledge of the SEP and how it should 
be administered, strongly supports the applicant’s allegation that he was insufficiently 
counseled and that his SEP was poorly administered.  In light of the supervisor’s failure 
to  counsel  the  applicant  properly  and  his  apparent  unfamiliarity  with  the  amount  of 
written  work  required,  the  Board  finds  that  the  applicant’s  SEP  was  poorly  and 
improperly administered during the reporting period for OER2.  Therefore, the appli-
cant’s slow progress was due to no fault of his own, but to the xxxx’s schedule and his 
supervisor’s improper administration of the SEP.  It was unjust for the applicant to be 
downgraded in OER2 on this basis. 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  the  fact  that  ten  junior  officers  who  served 
 
aboard the xxxx from July 199x to July 199x have been passed over for promotion and 
forced to retire proves that his evaluation was inaccurate.  Although the alleged pass 
over rate for the xxxx’s junior officers is extremely unusual, it is not necessarily proba-
tive of the accuracy of the applicant’s own OERs.   
 

The applicant also alleged that his rating chain purposefully and wrong-
fully  downgraded  him  to  motivate  him  to  work  harder.    The  applicant’s  supervisor 
signed an affidavit stating that the disputed OERs were honest and accurate evaluations 
of  the  applicant’s  performance.    The  Chief  Counsel  argued  that  the  disputed  OERs 
should  not  be  removed  because  they  “represent  the  honest  professional  judgment  of 
those responsible for evaluating Applicant.”  The Board is not persuaded that the appli-
cant’s rating chain acted in bad faith in downgrading him.  However, a lack of bad faith 
does  not  mean  that  the  OERs  are  fair  and  accurate  reflections  of  the  applicant’s  per-
formance.   
 

13. 

14. 

15. 

The Chief Counsel also argued that the applicant’s failure to file replies to 
the  disputed  OERs  should be considered evidence that he accepted his rating chains’ 
evaluations of his performance.  The Board does not believe that the applicant’s failure 
to reply at the time should deny him relief from errors the Coast Guard committed with 
regard to the disputed OERs. 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

16. 

The  Chief  Counsel  alleged  that  the  applicant’s  supervisor  had  properly 
administered the SEP.  He argued that the record shows that the supervisor set reason-
able goals for the applicant during the two reporting periods, which the applicant failed 
to meet.  However, given the facts and circumstances detailed in the findings above, the 
Board finds that the applicant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence (a) that 
both OER1 and OER2 were prepared without proper care and contain errors and omis-
sions prejudicial to the applicant; (b) that his supervisor poorly and improperly admin-
istered  his  SEP  program;  (c)  that  he  was  insufficiently  counseled  concerning  his  pro-
gress and performance; (d) that his performance was unfairly downgraded in OER1 and 
OER2 due to the improper administration of his SEP and unreasonable expectations of 
his supervisor; and (e) that the disputed OERs are therefore unjust and untrustworthy 
evaluations of the applicant’s performance.  
 
 
17.  Although the Chief Counsel did not submit a nexus argument, the Coast 
Guard  Personnel  Command  admitted  that  the  presence  of  the  disputed  OERs  in  the 
applicant’s record are likely to have caused his failures of selection.  The Board finds 
that the applicant’s record is much stronger without the disputed OERs and that, were 
the  disputed  OERs  not  in  the  applicant’s  record,  he  may  well  have  been  selected  for 
promotion. 
 
 
 
 
 
 

18.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be granted.  

ORDER 

The application for correction of the military record of XXXXXXXXX, USCGR, is 

 
 
granted as follows:   
 
 
The applicant’s OERs covering the periods August 17, 199x, to March 31, 199x, 
and April 1, 199x, to September 30, 199x, shall be removed from his record.  They shall 
be replaced by OERs marked “For Continuity Purposes Only.” 
 
 
The applicant shall be returned to active duty as a xxxxxx in the regular Coast 
Guard with no break in service or retirement shown in his record.  The applicant shall 
receive any back pay and allowances he is due as a result of this correction.  Should the 
applicant’s  accumulated  leave  then  exceed  60  days,  he  shall  be  permitted  to  sell  the 
excess (number of leave days over 60) to the Coast Guard without diminishing his total 
career entitlement to sell back leave.  
 
 
The applicant’s failures of selection to the rank of xxxxxx shall be removed from 
his  record.    The  applicant  shall  be  considered  for  promotion  by  the  next  two  xxx 
selection  boards  to  meet  after  he  has  received  two  regular  OERs  that  document  his 
performance following his return to active duty by this Order.   The applicant shall be 
considered by the first of those two boards as an officer “within the zone.”   
 

If  the  applicant  is  selected  for  promotion  by  the  first  xxx  selection  board  to 
consider his record as corrected by this Order, upon promotion, the applicant’s date of 
rank shall be the date of rank he would have received had he been selected for promo-
tion by the 199x selection board, and the applicant shall receive all back pay and allow-
ances due him.  
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
Charles Medalen 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 

 

 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 

 
 
James G. Parks 

 

 

 
 
Jacqueline L. Sullivan