DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2000-131 
 
 
   

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 docketed on May 18, 2000, 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 April 12, 2001, is signed by the three duly appointed 

 

 

 
 

 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, who retired from the Coast Guard as a xxxxxx on xxxxxxx, asked 
the Board to make the following corrections to the final officer evaluation report (OER) 
in her record: 
 

1.  correct her middle initial from “x” to “x”; 
2.  correct the last four digits of her social security number (SSN) to those shown 

in the caption of this Final Decision;  

3.  correct her pay grade from O-x to O-x; 
4.  correct her date of rank from 00/02/07 to 94/06/08; 
5.  correct the final date of the reporting period from 00/02/07 to xxxxxxx; 
6.  correct comments in block 2; and  
7.  remove all comments from block 3. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  the  middle  initial  and  SSN  shown  on  the  disputed 
OER are erroneous.  She alleged the other identified errors were made because she was 
both promoted and retired on xxxxxxxxx.  
 

The applicant submitted with her application a copy of an OER completed “for 
continuity only” and a signed note from her unit’s executive officer, who served as the 
reporting officer for the OER, stating that the new form was being submitted because 
the comments in block 3 of the original form were included in error as they were writ-
ten for another officer. 
  

SUMMARY OF  APPLICANT’S RECORD 

The  applicant  enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve on August 11, 1989, having 
previously  served  in  the  Naval  Reserve.    Her  record  contains  numerous  documents 
indicating that her middle initial is “x” and that the last four digits of her SSN are as 
shown in the caption of this Final Decision. 

 
The applicant was discharged on xxxxxx, in order to accept a commission as an 
ensign in the Reserve on xxxxxx.  Thereafter, she served continuously on active duty 
and was promoted to lieutenant junior grade (O-2) on xxxx, 1991.  On xxxxx, 1994, she 
was integrated into the regular Coast Guard and promoted to lieutenant (O-3).  

 
On xxxxxxx, the applicant received retirement orders after she was found to be 
50 percent disabled due to a permanent disability.  Her retirement orders stated that she 
was to be retired on xxxxxx, 2000, and that she was to “detach from all duties effective 
xxxxxxxx 2000, and proceed to your home of selection … .”  Her DD 214 indicates that 
on xxxxxx, 2000, she was retired due to a permanent disability at the rank of xxxxxx. 

 
The  applicant’s  final  OER  shows  the  evaluation  period  as  ending  on  xxxxxxx.  
Her middle initial, originally typed in as an “x,” is scratched out in ink and replaced 
with a “x.”  The last four digits of her SSN, typed in as “xxxx,” are scratched out and 
replaced in pencil with the numbers shown in the caption of this Final Decision.  Her 
grade,  typed  in  as  “xx,”  is  scratched  out in ink and replaced with “xx.”  Her date of 
rank, typed in as xxxxxx, is not corrected.  Block 2 contains a description of her duties 
and mention of her Achievement Award.  It only differs from the comments shown in 
block 2 of the substitute OER she submitted in that it includes the words “at the grade 
of xxxxxxx” when it refers to the fact that she is retiring.  Block 3 of the OER contains 
many comments about her performance.  She was assigned marks of “not observed” for 
all of the performance evaluation categories.  
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 

On November 30, 2000, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that 
the Board grant the applicant’s request by correcting the date in block 1 of the disputed 
OER  and by removing the comments in block 3.  He stated that this was a matter of 
plain error and adopted the recommendations of the Coast Guard Personnel Command 
(CGPC), whose memorandum on the case he attached to his advisory opinion.   

 

CGPC’s memorandum states that “in the process of generating a final document 
for signature, numerous errors were made that were not detected by the Reviewer or 
during subsequent CGPC validation.  Upon receipt of his [sic] copy, Applicant detected 
the errors and alerted his [sic] rating chain.  Since the OER had already been validated 
and entered into the official record, Applicant was required to [apply to the BCMR for 
the correction].”  CGPC concluded that the errors could be corrected by substituting the 
newly supplied page 1 of the OER for the original page 1.  CGPC explained that officers 
who are retiring are supposed to receive continuity OERs under Article 10.A.3.a.5.c. of 
the Personnel Manual. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 

 

 
On  December  4,  2001,  the  Chairman  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  Coast 
Guard’s  views  and  invited  her  to  respond  within  15  days.    The  applicant  did  not 
respond. 
 

RELEVANT REGULATIONS 

 
Article 10.A.3.a.5.a.(3) states that an OER created “for continuity purposes only” 
may be submitted for “[a]n officer on a semi-annual schedule [who] has an approved  
retirement  or  separation  (voluntary  resignations  and  discharges  only)  date  within  12 
months of the last regular OER submission and has met the expected high standard of 
performance during the period.” 
 

Article 10.A.3.a.5.c. states the following:  

 

c. 
When  submitting  a continuity OER, the Reported-on Officer shall com-
plete  Sections  1  and  13.    The  designated  Supervisor  shall  briefly  describe  the 
Reported-on Officer's responsibilities in Section 2 and state the reason the OER is 
submitted for continuity purposes, e.g., Submitted IAW Article 10.A.3.a.5., mem-
ber separating on 01 July 2000.  All other evaluation areas, including section 9, 
shall be left blank with "NOT OBSERVED" marked for each dimension.  In deter-
mining  whether  a  "continuity  purposes  only"  OER  is  appropriate  for  officers 
being  separated,  consideration  should  be  given  to  the  Reported-on-Officer's 
opportunity to request a reserve commission at some future date.  Lack of a fully 
documented  OER  upon  separation  may  adversely  affect  the  Reported-on  Offi-
cer's ability to later obtain a reserve commission and compete at future reserve 
officer selection boards.  Thus, for officers departing the service for reasons other 
than  retirement,  the  Supervisor  shall  ensure  that  the  Reported-on  Officer 
acknowledges reviewing this paragraph.  The Supervisor shall also include the 
following  language  in  Section  2  of  the  report:    "Officer  states  that  he/she  has 
reviewed the provisions of -> Article 10.A.3.a.5., and concurs with the decision 
to submit this "continuity purposes only" OER.  Where any member of the rating 
chain,  including  the  Reported-on  Officer,  has  information  deemed  significant 
enough to report for the period the OER covers, -> Article 10.A.4.c. procedures 
apply. 

 
 
Article  10.A.3.a.3.b.  states  that  “[f]or  officers  separating  from  the  Service,  the 
period of the report shall end on the final day of active service, including days on ter-
minal leave.” 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

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

3. 

5. 

6. 

1. 

2. 

4. 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 

 
 
of title 10 of the United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 
 
 The  applicant  has  proved  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  her 
middle  initial,  SSN,  and  pay  grade  were  wrong  as  originally  typed  on  the  disputed 
OER.    However,  these  three  corrections  have  already  been  made  to  the  OER  in  her 
record, either in ink or pencil.  The Board finds that the correction to her SSN should be 
made in ink to be consistent with the other corrections. 
 
The applicant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that, under 
 
Article  10.A.3.a.3.b. of the Personnel Manual, the last day of the reporting period of the 
disputed  OER  should  appear as xxxxxx because that was her last day on active duty 
and she was retired on xxxxxxxx. 
 
 
The  applicant  has  proved  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  the 
date of rank on the disputed OER should be corrected to xxxxxxx, because that was the 
day she was promoted to the rank of xxxxxx, which was the rank she held throughout 
the reporting period covered by the OER. 
 
 
The applicant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that there 
should be no comments whatsoever in block 3 of the disputed OER since it is a report 
prepared  “for  continuity  purposes  only”  under  Article  10.A.3.a.5.c.  of  the  Personnel 
Manual.  Therefore, the comments in block 3 should be removed. 
 
 
The applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
words “at the grade of xxxxxxx” should be removed from block 2 of the OER.  Article 
10.A.3.a.5.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  in  block  2  of  a  continuity  OER,  the 
supervisor “shall briefly describe the Reported-on Officer's responsibilities in Section 2 
and state the reason the OER is submitted for continuity purposes … .”  The reason the 
continuity report was submitted was that she was retiring.  Although the fact that she 
was retiring as an xxx may be considered unnecessary information, the applicant has 
not shown how its inclusion could possibly harm her.  Therefore, the Board finds that 
the inclusion of the words  “at the grade of xxxxxx” in block 2 of the disputed OER is, at 
most, a harmless error that does not require correction. 
 
 
The  Board  notes  that  the  sentence,  "Officer  states  that  he/she  has 
reviewed the provisions of -> Article 10.A.3.a.5., and concurs with the decision to sub-
mit  this  ‘continuity  purposes  only’  OER,”  does  not  appear  in  the  disputed  OER  as 
required  by  Article  10.A.3.a.5.    However,  the  Board  will  not  make  this  correction 
because the applicant has not complained of its absence and its absence cannot harm the 
applicant, who appears to concur with the decision to prepare a continuity OER in any 
case. 
 

7. 

8. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be granted by correcting her 
 
SSN in ink; by correcting her date of rank and the end date of the reporting period; and 
by removing all of the comments in block 3 on the disputed OER.  
 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

 

ORDER 

 
 
The  application  of  retired  XXXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  her  military 
record is hereby granted in part.  The last OER submitted into her record, which was 
prepared because of her retirement, shall be corrected as follows:  
 

•  The  social  security  number  in  block  1.b.  shall  be  corrected  in  ink,  rather  than 
pencil, to reflect the correct number as shown above in this Order. 
 
•  The date of rank for her promotion to xxx shown in block 1.e. shall be corrected 
to xxxxxxx. 

•  The last day of the reporting period shown in block 1.j. shall be corrected from 
xxxxx to xxxxxx. 

•  All of the comments in block 3 shall be removed. 

The remaining corrections requested by the applicant either have already been 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

made in ink on the OER or are unnecessary. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
James K. Augustine 

 

 

 
Coleman R. Sachs 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
Edmund T. Sommer, Jr.