DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
 
Application for Correction of  
Coast Guard Record of: 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
BCMR Docket  
No.  2002-076 

DECISION OF THE DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL 

ACTING UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 

______   I approve the recommended Order of the Board. 

______   I disapprove the recommended Order of the Board.  

X 

 
_______  I concur in the relief recommended by the Board. 

 

 
 
 
 

1/23/03

 

 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 

 
   
 
 
 
 

     

 

/S/

Rosalind A. Knapp 
 
Deputy General Counsel 
  as designated to act for the 
  Secretary of Transportation 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 

       
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Date:  
 
 
 
 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
 
Application for Correction of  
Coast Guard Record of: 
 
 
 
 
    

 
 
 
BCMR Docket  
No.  2002-076 

  FINAL DECISION 

This final decision, dated January 16, 2003, is signed by the three duly appointed 

 
ULMER, Chair: 
 
 
This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 
425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  It was docketed on March 22, 2002, upon the 
BCMR’s  receipt  of  the  applicant’s  complete  application  for  correction  of  his  military 
record. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 
 
The applicant, a lieutenant commander (LCDR) on active duty, asked the Board 
to  correct  his  record  by  modifying  his  officer  evaluation  report  (OER)  for  the  period 
from May 1, 1998 to April 30, 1999 (disputed OER). He further requested that the Board 
remove  his  1999,  2000,  and  2001  failures  of  selection  for  promotion  to  commander 
(CDR)  and  "afford  him  an  additional  opportunity  for  promotion  to  commander  on  a 
within-the-zone basis, with provision, if he is selected, for back pay and date of rank as 
if he had been selected in 1999, 2000, or 2001, depending on whether he is selected on 
his first, second or third consideration following the Board's decision."   
 
 
Subsequent  to  filing  his  application  with  the  Board,  the  applicant  was  selected 
for  promotion  to  CDR  by  the  2002  CDR  selection  board.    He  stated  his  selection  for 
promotion to CDR in no way moots his case. 
 

EXCERPTS FROM RECORD AND SUBMISSIONS 

 

 
The applicant received the disputed OER while serving as the executive officer 
(XO) of a cutter.  He requested that the disputed OER be modified by raising the marks 
of 4 to at least a 5 in blocks 4.b. (writing) and 5.f. (evaluations).  He requested that the 
following comments be deleted: 

 
[Block  4]    Decent  writer;  personal  talent  to  produce  fine  quality  work, 
however,  not  a  forte.    Subord[inates']  work  of  mixed  qual[ity];  worked 
hard  to  improve,  institute  proof  reader  [program],  resulted  in  dramatic 
reduction in errors.   

 

 
[From  block  5  comments  the  underlined  phrase]    13  OERs 
produced, req'd some add'l [work] . . . [Enlisted performance evaluations 
forms] on time, none returned, all w[ith] excel[lent] docum[entation].   

 

The  applicant's  commanding  officer  (CO)1  served  as  both  the  supervisor  and 
reporting officer for the OER under review, as permitted by the Personnel Manual. The 
applicant stated that a rating chain normally consists of three individuals, a supervisor, 
reporting  officer,  and  a  reviewer. 
  However,  for  XOs  like  the  applicant,  the 
commanding  officer  is  normally  both  the  supervisor  and  the  reporting  officer.    He 
argued that while this is permissible under the Personnel Manual, the fact that the same 
person  wears  two  hats  has  repeatedly  (and  properly)  been  taken  into  account  in 
deciding  whether,  along  with  other  factors,  a  case  raises  "serious  and  substantial 
questions regarding the validity of the OER and of the evaluation process itself."  See 
BCMR No. 411-91.  He stated that the lack of a full rating chain makes it particularly 
appropriate for the Board to cast its net perhaps more broadly than it might otherwise 
do  in  testing  the  accuracy  and  fairness  of  an  OER  and  in  deciding whether the usual 
presumption should apply. 

 
The  applicant  stated  that  the  evidence  shows  that  the  reporting  officer's 
preparation of his OER was influenced by a variety of factors, including the reporting 
officer's  personal  difficulties  and  obsessiveness,  a  personality  conflict  between  the 
applicant  and  reporting  officer,  and  retaliation  for  the  applicant  having  objected  to 
improper  conduct  on  the  part  of  the  reporting  officer.    In  this  regard,  the  applicant 
claimed that the CO harbored hostility against him because of the applicant's resistance 
to  the  CO's  efforts  to  direct  the manner in which the applicant and other supervisors 
and reporting officers on the cutter rated their subordinate officers.  He alleged that due 
to  this  hostility,  the  CO  planted  "career-ending  'faint  praise,'"  and  "zinger[s]"  in  an 
otherwise  seemingly  fine  OER.    In  addition,  the  applicant  stated  that  it  fell  to  him  to 
discuss with the CO, the CO's inappropriate behavior by engaging in a wrestling and 
grabbing match with a female junior officer on the bridge shortly after the applicant had 
reprimanded a senior enlisted member and a junior officer for a fraternization incident.  
According  to  the  applicant,  the  CO  was  not  happy  about  being  questioned  about  his 
actions.   

 
The  applicant  suggested  that  the  CO's  questionable  behavior  during  the 
reporting  period  might  have  been  negatively  influenced  by  the  considerable  personal 
stress that he was under.  The applicant stated that the CO's wife "was having a second 
difficult  pregnancy    .  .  .  [he  had  become]  increasingly  withdrawn  .  .  .  he  was 
preoccupied with the 100-year old home he had purchased, . . . and perhaps above all 
he  was  confronting  what  seems  to  have  been  (in  his  eyes)  the  traumatic  event  of 
impending retirement."   
 
The applicant stated that the CO was a poor communicator and indecisive about 
 
how and what he wanted to say in a written communications.  The applicant stated that 
the  CO  required  endless  revisions  of  written  work  resulting  from  his  own  indecision 
rather than any shortcoming on the applicant's part.  According to the applicant, as well 
                                                 
1   The CO and reporting officer are used interchangeably throughout this decision.   

as others, the CO's standards were always changing.  In this regard, a chief petty officer 
wrote  "Even  though  the  CO  would  return  items  to  us  it  wasn't  for  errors  but  for 
modification  because  we  never  knew  what  he  would  want  to  change.    This  was  a 
nightmare."    Another  senior  chief  stated  that  the  CO's  "expectations  were  a  moving 
target."  He further stated, "We never knew what he really wanted and it remained a 
mystery  despite  our  frequent  queries.    Correspondence  and  message  traffic  was 
returned  numerous  times  for  adjustment,  yet  after  changes  were  made,  [the  CO] 
decided that the first draft was better anyway.  It was not uncommon [for the CO] to 
make so many changes to a letter that the final copy . . . looked and read very much like 
the original."   
 
The  applicant's  previous  CO  for  an  approximately  60-day  period  did  not 
 
complete an OER on the applicant, but stated that the written work prepared for him by 
the applicant was excellent, thoroughly researched, well constructed and succinct.  This 
CO  noted  that  even  the  current  CO  in  his  first  OER  on  the  applicant  had  only  fine 
things  to  say  about  the  applicant's  writing.  The  immediate  prior  CO  stated  that  a 
personality  conflict  existed  between  the  applicant  and  the  reporting  officer.    See  the 
summary of this CO's statement infra.   
 

The  immediate  subsequent  OER  to  the  one  in  question  written  by  a  different 
reporting officer noted the applicant's fine writing skills.  That reporting officer gave the 
applicant a 6 in writing the next subsequent OER.  In a statement to the Board, this CO 
wrote that "[w]ritten correspondence that [the applicant] gave to me was always well 
thought out and flawlessly formatted.  It was obvious to me that he was strong in those 
areas  and  I  knew  I  would  not  have  to  send  written  work  back  for  revisions."    The 
applicant's writing marks as a LCDR (with the contested mark bolded) are 6, 4, NOB, 5, 
4, 6, 6, and 6.   
 
The  applicant  stated  that  the  record  confirms  that  he  was  an  expert  in  the 
 
evaluation of personnel -- a performance dimension that overlaps with writing.  In this 
regard, the applicant stated that he had worked in the Headquarters office responsible 
for  OERs.    The  applicant's  evaluation  marks  as  a  LCDR  (with  the  contested  mark 
bolded) are 5, 5, NOB, 4, 4, 6, 5, and 5.  
 
 
The  applicant  argued  that  the  inaccuracies  in  the  disputed  OER  caused  his 
failures of selection for promotion to CDR.  He stated that, had the disputed comments 
not  been  in  the  OER  and  had  either  of  the  corresponding  marks  been  higher,  his 
military record would have been stronger when he came before the promotion boards 
in  1999,  2000,  and  2001.    He  invited  the  Board's  attention  to  a  statement  by  a  Coast 
Guard captain, who has supervised the Evaluation, Assignment, and Status/Promotion 
Branches and was Chief of the Officer Personnel Management Division at Coast Guard 
Headquarters, which read in pertinent part: 
 

Based  on  my  collective  [footnote  deleted]  experience,  a  best-qualified 
selection  board  would  obviously  focus  on  both  the  mark  and  the 
comments  [concerning  writing]  and  both  would  undoubtedly  be 
construed  in  a  negative  manner.    Given  the  keen  competition  for 

promotion,  the  OER  as  written  (with  the  present  writing  mark  and 
comments) makes [the applicant's] selection to O-5 unlikely.   

 
 
The applicant stated that nothing in his military record, other than the disputed 
OER, ruled out his promotion.  He stated that he has an outstanding record, except for 
the disputed comments and marks.   
 
 
 
 
 
Other Statements Submitted by the Applicant 
 
 
in  support  of  his 
application.  Those considered relevant to the issues involved in this case are discussed 
below. 
 

The  applicant  submitted  numerous  other  statements 

1.    The  applicant's  immediate  previous  CO  wrote  that  he  and  the  applicant 
worked  together  for  two  months  prior to his departure.  He stated that the applicant 
demonstrated  to  him  in  that  short  time  that  he  would  be  an  outstanding  future  XO, 
quickly assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the wardroom, chief's mess and the 
crew.    This  individual  stated  that  it  was  clear  to  him  that  the  applicant  was  an 
accomplished  sailor,  administrator  and  leader.    He  stated  that  his  relief  in  command 
(the reporting officer) was less of a sailor or leader than the applicant.  He stated that he 
believed  the  reporting  officer's  resentment  of  the  applicant  began  before  he  departed 
the ship.  He offered the following reason for his conclusion that the reporting officer 
resented the applicant: 
 

One  evening  during  relief  week,  without  either  my  or  [the  applicant's] 
knowledge,  [the  reporting  officer]  called  an  unscheduled  meeting  of  my 
department  heads  in  the  wardroom.    I  happened  to  walk  in  on  the 
meeting  and  was  appalled  that  [the  reporting  officer]  chose  to  sit  in  the 
Captain's chair, a chair that was still mine.  A relieving CO should never 
seek or assume those amenities or privileges, which are the prerogative of 
the incumbent, until he or she is relieved and has departed.  . .  .  Rather 
than  conform  [the  reporting  officer]  in  front  of  his  future  wardroom,  I 
retired to the cabin.  [The applicant] stopped in and when he learned how 
upset I was he took it upon himself to speak with [the reporting officer].  
As  a  professional  [the  reporting  officer]  should  have  taken  this  in  the 
helpful way it was intended, I doubt he did so.  
 
[A]  few  months  later  .  .  .  I  was  invited  [back  to  the  cutter].  .  .  .  I  was 
appalled at how the atmosphere aboard the ship had changed.  The crew 
was  wound  tight  and  based  upon  my  few  short  hours  aboard  .  .  . 
everything pointed to the CO.   

 
 
immediate  subsequent  CO  wrote  that  the  written 
correspondence  that  the  applicant  gave  to  him  was  always  well  thought  out  and 

  The  applicant's 

2. 

flawlessly  formatted.    "It  was  obvious  to  me  that  [the  applicant]  was  strong  in  these 
areas  and  I  knew  I  would  not  have  to  send  written  work  back  for  revisions."    This 
individual  further  stated  that  the  applicant's  "evaluation  reports  were  thorough, 
complete,  and  on  time."    This  CO  gave  the  applicant  a  6  in  both  the  writing  and 
evaluations categories on his next OER. 
 
 
3.    A  CDR  who  was  serving  as  CO  of  another  cutter  during  the  period  of  the 
disputed OER stated that during visits to the applicant's cutter, he had an opportunity 
to observe the working relationship between the applicant and the reporting officer.  He 
stated that, knowing the personalities and leadership styles of both individuals, it was 
not surprising that there were challenges in their working relationship.  He stated that it 
was abundantly clear to him that the success of the ship's performance and welfare of 
the crew was due to the efforts of [the applicant]. 
 
 
4.  The CO of a different cutter wrote that he and the reporting officer assumed 
their commands about the same time and were neighbors.  He stated that it was clear 
during  conversations  with  the  reporting  officer  that  he  was  not  happy  with  the 
applicant's performance.  According to this individual, the reporting officer thought the 
applicant was too much of a "people-person."  He stated that there was "a disconnect" 
between  the  reporting  officer  and  the  applicant  on  many  topics,  particularly  the 
handling  and  leadership  development  of  junior  officers.    He  stated  that  the  applicant 
provided  his  newly  assigned  XO  with  counseling  and  that  his  XO  would  present 
correspondence to the applicant for review before sending it to him.  This CO stated, 
"through  these  interactions  .  .  .  [he]  saw  [his]  XO  grow  with  leaps  and  bounds  in  all 
areas, in particular with his administration abilities and leadership." 
 
 
The applicant submitted several statements from officers and enlisted members 
assigned  to  the  cutter  at  various  times  during  the  applicant's  and  reporting  officer's 
time together.  Each of these individuals indicated that they held the applicant in the 
highest esteem and that his guidance and training had enhanced their careers.  These 
statements provided the following information. 
 
 
5.  The engineering officer, a LT, wrote that he served as acting XO in the absence 
of  the  applicant  and  he  also  assisted  the  applicant  in  the  preparation  of  OERs  and 
correspondence.    He  stated  that  he  witnessed  the  reporting  officer's  "tinkering  with 
OERs" and "his unending changes to the ship's correspondence."  This individual stated 
that the reporting officer, over the applicant's objection, directed the applicant to lower 
grades  in  the  supervisor's  portion  of  the  engineering  officer's  departing  OER.  
According to this LT, the reporting officer did not appreciate the applicant's objection to 
being ordered to lower grades on the LT's OER or the applicant's discussion with the 
reporting officer about his inappropriate behavior with a junior officer.  He stated that 
valuable time was wasted when routine correspondence was changed again and again.  
He stated that although he never saw the reporting officer's medical record, he strongly 
suspected that he had a serious bout with depression.   
 
 
6.    The  damage  control  assistant,  a  LT,  wrote  that  the  applicant  provided  him 
with  clear  and  accurate  guidance  on  preparing  both  enlisted  and  officer  evaluations.  
"While I felt confident that we had submitted a good product, it was always returned 

with changes that were to be made before the CO would sign it.  This included lowering 
marks in the Supervisor's section of the OER, where the applicant was the supervisor."  
He stated that the applicant had excellent writing skills.   
 
7.  The 1st LT wrote that the reporting officer's overemphasis on writing ability 
 
resulted  in  wasted  resource  hours.    This  LT  stated,  "it  was  normal  to  have  routine 
message traffic returned ten to fifteen times for corrections."  This individual stated that 
the reporting officer had an ever-changing style and took valuable time to make the XO 
change  his  already  outstanding  correspondence."    He stated that the reporting officer 
seemed  to make changes for the sake of change and lost his overall focus.  He stated 
that as operation officer, he helped the applicant write OERs for the new junior officers 
and in his opinion these OERs were well written and well documented.  He stated that 
the  applicant,  who  had  worked  at  OPM,  taught  him  to  write  high  quality  OERs.  He 
stated  that  the  reporting  officer  returned  all  OERs  to  have  marks  lowered  and 
comments changed that did not match the reporting officer's opinion and writing style.  
He stated that the applicant told him that the reporting officer would get upset anytime 
the  applicant  discussed  the  inappropriateness  of  the  reporting  officer's  directing 
changes to OERs that were the responsibility of other members of the rating chain. 
 
 
Last,  this  LT  offered  his  perception  that  the  reporting  officer  was  extremely 
judgmental towards the applicant due to the dissimilarities in personality traits and that 
the reporting officer's feelings against the applicant seemed to intensify during the last 
month of the reporting officer's command.  He stated that the applicant tried everything 
to please the reporting officer but was penalized for it.   
 
 
8.  A LT who reported to the cutter in 1998 stated that the reporting officer was 
very difficult to work for and nothing pleased him no matter the quality.  He stated that 
the documents he saw the applicant send to the reporting officer were clear and concise, 
but were changed by the reporting officer only for the sake of change.  This LT offered 
his opinion that the applicant was an expert at writing OERs. 
 
 
9.  A LT who served aboard the cutter from May 1996 to June 1998 stated that she 
worked closely with the applicant as the 1st LT and as his administrative assistant.  She 
expressed the same opinion of the reporting officer's obsession with writing as the other 
LTs.  She stated that the applicant and she developed a sample correspondence manual 
with message templates to eliminate any errors in the drafting of messages.  In addition, 
she stated that the applicant was an expert in the evaluations process for both officers 
and enlisted members.   
 
 
10.  A LT junior grade (LTJG) stated that, after a year aboard the cutter with the 
reporting officer, she decided that she did not want to be in the Coast Guard past her 
five-year  commitment.    She  described  the  atmosphere  aboard  the  cutter  as  one  of 
"uncertainty  and  hesitancy."    She  stated  "every  piece  of  correspondence  that  [she] 
submitted, using the formats and templates (from the correspondence binder) provided 
to [her], was turned around at the CO level with various changes."  She stated that the 
reporting  officer  never  spelled  out  his  desires  and  expectations,  which  changed  so 
frequently that it was impossible to pinpoint what he wanted.  She stated that it was not 
uncommon for him to make so many changes to a letter that the final copy looked and 

read very much like the original.  She stated that the reporting officer directed that her 
rating chain lower their marks in one of her OERs, in violation of the Commandant's 
policy. 
 
This  LTJG  stated  that  it  was  "crystal  clear  [to  her]  that  [the  reporting  officer] 
 
resented [the applicant], his strong command presence and his passion to do the right 
thing in following Coast Guard regulations.  [The reporting officer] simply could not be 
pleased."    She  further  stated  that  based  on  her  observations,  living  near  both  the 
applicant  and  the  reporting  officer,  she  realized  "how  unstable  the  [reporting  officer] 
was when it came to making decisions." 
 
11.  Another LTJG, who was the combat information center officer and served as 
 
the  applicant's  administrative  assistant,  stated  that  towards  the  end  of  the  reporting 
officer's tour, she noticed that he became increasingly stressed and preoccupied with a 
number of things -- namely retirement, change of command, his wife's condition, and 
purchasing a new home.  According to the LTJG, there was a general feeling that the 
applicant was trying to take the load and pressure off the CO and make things perfect 
during this period. 
 
 
assistant to the applicant described the reporting officer in the following manner:   
 

12.    A  former  LTJG,  who  served  as  the  supply  officer  and  as  administrative 

[The  reporting  officer]  did  not  project  a  very  positive  attitude  about 
anything, choosing instead to focus on the negative.  He did not connect 
well  with  his  crew,  did  not  get  involved  with  many  morale  events,  and 
seemed to resent people relaxing and having a good time. [The reporting 
officer] would rarely leave the ship in foreign ports, opting instead to stay 
in  his  cabin.    He  was  often  sullen,  seemed  unhappy  and  looked  upset 
much of the time.  His attitude seemed to get worse as his tour went on, 
and  was  most  noticeable  in  the  last  few  months  before  his  Change  of 
Command and Retirement Ceremony.  We felt like we were walking on 
eggshells around him, not wanting to do anything to upset him.  If it had 
not  been  for  [the  applicant's] influence, the crew would have found [the 
reporting officer's] tour much harder to take. 

13. 

 
  A  senior  chief  petty  officer  stated  that  he  reviewed  much  of  the 
 
correspondence  for  the  chiefs  and  junior  officers.    "[The  reporting  officer]  was  an 
unusually difficult CO to please, not because his standards were too high, but because 
they  were  always  changing."    This  individual  stated  that  he  was  impressed  by  the 
applicant's sharp administrative capabilities and trusted his input on correspondence he 
prepared.  He also stated that a personality conflict existed between the applicant and 
the reporting officer because of the applicant's fantastic rapport with the crew and the 
reporting officer's lack of rapport.  He stated he viewed the applicant as the "CO and 
XO combined." 
 
 
14.  A chief boatswain's mate wrote that the reporting officer as CO "did not look 
the  role,  lead  in  his  position  and  resented  all  of  the  responsibilities  as  the  CO.  
Additionally,  he  suffered  from  physical  and  mental  ailments  that  he  alluded  to  on 

several occasions and lacked the endurance to adequately handle shipboard life, which 
contributed to his resentment and mistreatment of [the applicant]."  He also stated that 
the reporting officer became very distant from the crew toward the end of his tour.  He 
attributed the cutter's success to the applicant.   
 
 
The  applicant  also  submitted  statements  from  other  Coast  Guard  officers  who 
were  not  assigned  to  the  cutter  but  had  some  knowledge  about  the  applicant's 
performance. 
 
 
16.  The assistant to the Director of the Atlantic Area's Major Cutter Forces stated 
that his primary duties were 1) primary staff point of contact with the Forces XOs and 
2)    OER  reviewer  for  all  OERs  that  came  from  those  cutters  for  the  ranks  of  Ensign 
through LT.  He stated that he worked closely with the applicant during the period in 
question.  According to this individual, early in the applicant's assignment to the cutter, 
he sought advice on writing OERs, unlike other XOs who either waited to get advice 
until they were struggling with an OER or until they were late in submitting an OER.  
"The OERs that I reviewed . . . during [the applicant's] entire tour were timely and well 
written. . . . [O]ther paper work . . . such as awards, letters and messages were of the 
highest quality; a direct reflection of the XO's writing and admin skills." 
 
 
17.  A retired LCDR, who currently teaches in various settings and also taught at 
the  Coast  Guard  Academy,  stated  that  he  served  as  the  applicant's  mentor  while 
assigned  to  a  command  and  staff  college.    "I  found  [the  applicant]  to  be  a  superior 
writer  who  had  a  keen  ability  to  organize  and  express  complex  ideas  in  an  easy  to 
understand manner . . . [H]is dissertation was so superb that it was reviewed only once 
by his review board." 
 
Views of the Coast Guard  
 
 
On  August  27,  2002,  the  Board  received  an  advisory  opinion  from  the  Chief 
Counsel of the Coast Guard, which included an enclosure from the Commander, Coast 
Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC).   He recommended that the Board deny relief in 
this  case  and  called  the  reporting  officer's  statement  in  support  of  the  applicant's 
application unreliable since it was made three years after the fact. 
 
The  reporting  officer  wrote  in  an  undated  statement  that  an  officer  at  Coast 
 
Guard  Headquarters  contacted  him  about  the  disputed  OER.    He  stated  that  he  had 
reviewed his comments and the marks in question and has serious reservations about 
their accuracy, even saying they were wrong.  He stated that his judgment could have 
been impeded by the stress he was under particularly during his last year of command.  
He stated that he had a sick wife and three small children; he had to purchase a house 
without  his  wife's  help  due  to  her  condition;  and  he  had  been  on  sea  duty  for  five 
straight years and was mentally fatigued.  He further stated as follows: 
 

Work was taking its toll on both [the applicant] and me.  Our Operations 
Officer had a breakdown before our last patrol and we had to replace him 
with  an  Ensign.    The  MLC  Compliance  Inspection  and  TISTA  Training 
Readiness  Evaluation  (TRE)  were  back  on  either  side  of  my  Change  of 

Command.    The  MLC  Inspection  would normally have been offset from 
the TRE but it had been delayed for a year through no fault of our own.  
We were swamped and we knew it.   
 
 .  .  In  November  1998,  I  brought  [the  cutter]  in  to  Panama  for  refueling. 
The  port  of  Colon  was  the  exact  same  place  that  I  fought  during  the 
Panama Invasion.  I earned the Combat Action Ribbon there but it did not 
come  free.    The  flashbacks  that  the  port  call  brought  back  were  not 
pleasant and that caused me tremendous stress.   I would like to note that 
after  my  retirement  I  was  awarded  a  30%  Veterans  Administration 
disability for combat related Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  . .  
 
I  firmly  believe  that  all  of  these  issues  were  contributing  factors  toward 
me making comments and assigning marks in the sited areas that make no 
sense to me looking at it from today's prospective.   

 
 
The  reporting  officer  stated  that  he  did  not  concur  with  the  questioned 
comments or mark in the writing category and that they are in error.  He stated that he 
cringed at the comment that writing was not the applicant's forte and he "meant to say 
that  [the  applicant]  was  doing  a  great  job,  despite  the  worst  of  circumstances,  when 
writing was not his main expected job skill."  He stated that his comment in this regard 
appears  to  be  very  insulting.    He  further  stated  "I  surmise  that  because  I  wrote  the 
whole  OER  myself,  and  therefore  had  no  proof  reader,  I  inadvertently  left  in  place 
markers  for  future  comments  and  forgot  to  round  out  the  phrases  to  reflect  my  true 
judgment."   He recommended deleting the disputed comment and raising the mark to 
at least a 5.   
 
 
With  respect  to  the  mark  in  evaluations  and  the  challenged  comment,  the 
reporting officer stated that they are incorrect.  He recommended removing the phrase 
"req'd some add'l work" from the OER and raising the mark in the evaluations category 
to  6.    He  stated  that  the  comment  that  the  OERs  prepared  by  the  applicant  required 
some additional work was supposed to be connected to the very next comment, which 
would then have read, 13 OERs produced, required some additional work, coordinated 
extensive junior training to improve quality.  He stated many of the OERs submitted by 
the junior officers required additional work, which is the reason the applicant set up the 
training program.  He stated that the comments with the deleted phrase clearly rate a 6.   
 
 
The reporting officer stated that symptoms of PTSD interfere with one's ability to 
focus  and  he  believes  that  his  medical  condition  caused  him  to  make  errors  in  the 
applicant's OER. 
 
 
Notwithstanding the reporting officer's statement in support of the applicant, the 
Chief Counsel argued that the reporting officer's declaration and the other statements 
submitted by the applicant are insufficient evidence to support changing the applicant's 
marks  in  the  writing  and  evaluations  categories.    He  stated  that  the  integrity  of  the 
officer  evaluation  system  (OES)  depends  on  the  accuracy  of  the  reporting  officer's 
contemporaneous  assessment  of  the  performance  of  the  reported-on  officer,  and 
permitting such a change after three years would dramatically compromise that system.    

 
 
The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant's basic application is in conflict with 
the reporting officer's statement in that the applicant attributed the alleged erroneous 
marks  to  the  existence  of  a  personality  conflict  with  the  reporting  officer  while  the 
reporting  officer  attributed  them  to  stress  and  the  symptoms  of  PTSD.    The  Chief 
Counsel argued that the reporting officer provided appropriate comments in support of 
the  marks  of  4.    Therefore,  the  Chief  Counsel  concluded  that  the  reporting  officer's 
judgment was not so clouded by PTSD as to prevent him from properly supporting the 
marks he assigned to the applicant.   
 
 
In  the  CGPC  memorandum  attached  as  Enclosure  (1)  to  the  advisory  opinion, 
CGPC  stated  that  there  is  evidence  in  the  record  supporting  the  reporting  officer's 
statement that he was suffering from stress and anxiety.  CGPC further stated that the 
reporting  officer's  November  30,  1998  retirement  request  does  coincide  with  his 
declaration  that  he  began  experiencing  flashbacks  associated  with  PTSD  after  a  port 
visit in November 1998, which may have prompted him to request retirement.  CGPC 
stated,  however,  that  there  was  no  evidence  that  the  stresses  the  reporting  officer 
experienced  negatively  impacted  his  ability  to  perform  his  operational  duties.    The 
stresses  from  which  the  reporting  officer  suffered  drew  neither  the  attention  of  the 
cutter's crew or that of the reporting officer's superiors.  In this regard, CGPC noted that 
the reporting officer received the Meritorious Service Medal as an end of tour award, 
denoting  a  highly  successful  two-year  tour  of  duty.  CGPC  argued  that  since  the 
reporting officer was capable and qualified to exercise proper judgment to successfully 
command an afloat unit, it stands to reason that he was also capable of completing an 
OER  accurately.    CGPC  stated  that  the  reporting  officer's  retrospective  review  of  the 
situation, which has allowed him to re-think the words he wrote in this evaluation and 
now deem them as unfair, does not override the presumption of regularity.   
 
 
assign certain marks in the supervisor's portion of OERs, CGPC stated as follows: 
 

With respect to the allegation that the reporting officer directed the applicant to 

The rating chain members signed the portions of the OER for which they 
were  responsible.    If,  at  the  time,  they  felt  as  strongly  about  the 
"manipulation" of the OERs stated in their declarations they should have 
objected to signing the OERs. . . . All officers in the rating chain including 
[the] Applicant should have upheld their responsibility per the [Personnel 
Manual] and refused to sign evaluations that they did not agree with or 
support.    Rather,  the  opinions  expressed  [by  the  officers  who  submitted 
statements]  appear  to  be  a  retrospective  review  of  the  events  of  several 
years ago supporting Applicant whom they greatly respect and who they 
may be able to assist at this time in Applicant's career.  

 
Applicant's Response to the Views of the Coast Guard 
 
 
On September 30, 2002, the Board received the applicant's response to the views 
of the Coast Guard.  The applicant stated that whether the cause of the unfairness and 
inaccuracy of the OER was a psychiatric condition suffered by the reporting officer or 
simply otherwise unexplained malevolence or the lack of objectivity, the fact is that the 

reporting  officer  was  not  behaving  and  rating  the  applicant  with  the  measure  of 
fairness, accuracy, and objectivity required by the Personnel Manual.  He argued that it 
is immaterial that he was not aware of the reporting officer's diagnosis when he filed his 
BCMR application, because whatever the etiology, the reporting officer was not doing 
his job properly when it came to the applicant's OER.  The applicant further stated as 
follows: 
 

[I]t  fell  to  the  [reporting  officer]  to  function  as  both  Supervisor  and 
Reporting Officer on [the applicant's] OER.  As a result, a key check that 
the officer evaluation system ordinarily provides is not present.  This is a 
factor that should certainly be taken into account in determining whether, 
in light of the entire record, both with and without [the reporting officer's] 
PTSD disclosure, the OER should be corrected. 

 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 
 
The  Board  makes  the  following  findings  and  conclusions  on  the  basis  of  the 
applicant's  submissions  and  military  record,  the  Coast  Guard's  submission,  and 
applicable law: 
 
 
United Stated Code.  It was timely. 
 

1.    The  Board  has  jurisdiction  of  this  case  pursuant  to  section  1552  of  title  10, 

2.  The applicant requested an oral hearing.  The Chairman, under section 52.31 
of  title  33,  Code  of  Federal  Regulations,  recommended  disposition  on  the  merits 
without a hearing.  The Board concurred in that recommendation. 
 
 
3.  The Board finds that the applicant has established by a preponderance of the 
evidence that the disputed marks and comments are not an accurate representation of 
his performance in the writing and evaluations categories.  In this regard the Board is 
satisfied  that  the  applicant  has  produced  the  necessary  evidence  to  rebut  the 
presumption  that  the  reporting  officer  discharged  his  duty  correctly,  lawfully,  and  in 
good faith with respect to the disputed OER.  The Board notes that the reporting officer 
himself admits that his judgment was impaired due to the stresses of having a sick wife 
and three small children, purchasing a home without his wife's assistance, his pending 
retirement, and his suffering from PTSD at the time he prepared the disputed OER.  He 
stated  that  PTSD  interferes  with  one's  ability  to  focus  and  believes  that  this  medical 
condition caused him to make errors in the applicant's OER.  He stated with respect to 
the writing and evaluations categories of the subject OER that he "inadvertently left in 
place  markers  for  future  comments  and  forgot  to round out the phrases to reflect his 
true judgment." He admitted in his written statement that the challenged comments and 
marks as written are in error.   
 
 
4.    CGPC  admitted  in  their  submission  that  the  reporting  officer's  statement 
about his mental health and other stresses is corroborated by various statements from 
officers who served with the applicant at the time.  Statements from two different LTJGs 
commented on the reporting officer's disposition, stating that  "he became increasingly 
stressed  and  preoccupied"  and  "was  sullen  .  .  .  unhappy  .  .  .  upset  .  .  .  [h]is  attitude 

seemed  to  get  worse  as  his  tour  went  on,  and  was  most  noticeable  in  the  last  few 
months before his change of command."  A LT and a chief boatswain's mate wrote that 
they believed that the reporting officer suffered from physical and mental ailments that 
contributed  to  his  lack  of  endurance  and  inability  to  handle  shipboard  life.  One  LT 
stated  that  the  reporting  officer  was  extremely  judgmental  toward  the  applicant  and 
that his feelings in this regard intensified toward the end of his two-year tour of duty.  
The  reporting  officer's  statement  that  the  questioned  marks  and  comments  do  not 
accurately  reflect  the  applicant's  skills  is  corroborated by statements from individuals 
who  worked  with  the  applicant,  and  from  those  he  counseled  and  consulted  with 
assigned to various other commands.  These individuals stated that the applicant was 
an excellent writer and had expert knowledge of the evaluations process.  They stated 
that  the  problem  was  with  the  reporting  officer's  inability  to  make  decisions  and/or 
articulate any writing standards.  
 
 
5.  Accordingly based on the above, the Board finds that the reporting officer had 
impaired  judgment,  particularly  with  respect  to  the  applicant,  which  resulted  in  his 
inability to accurately, fairly, and objectively evaluate the applicant, a violation of the 
Personnel  Manual.    Article  10.A.1.b.(1)  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  "[e]ach 
commanding  officer  must  ensure  that  accurate,  fair,  and  objective  evaluations  are 
provided to all under command." In light of the above discussion, the Board finds that 
the applicant has rebutted the presumption of regularity in this case.   
 
 
6.  Having  determined  that  the  applicant  has  rebutted  the  presumption  of 
regularity,  the  Board  further  finds  that  he  has  shown  by  a  preponderance  of  the 
evidence that the challenged marks and comments on the disputed OER lack credibility 
and reliability and are therefore in error.  In this regard the applicant has shown that his 
marks  in  the  writing  and  evaluations  categories,  as  well  as  the  related  disputed 
comments, were probably "influenced by 'factors adversely affecting the ratings which 
had no business in the rating process."  See Hary v. United States, 618 F.2d 704, 708.  The 
reporting  officer's  resentment  of  the  applicant  and  his  obsession  with  written  work 
negatively  influenced  his  ability  to  objectively  evaluate  the  applicant's  performance.  
The  reporting  officer's  resentment  of  the  applicant  is  well  established  through  the 
statements  from  officers  who  worked  with  the  applicant  or  had  an  opportunity  to 
observe the interaction between the applicant and the reporting officer.  The applicant's 
previous CO noted that the reporting officer's resentment of the applicant began before 
the reporting officer officially assumed command because the applicant brought to his 
attention that the then CO felt slighted by the reporting officer's holding of a meeting 
aboard the cutter without first consulting with the then CO.  Several officers stated that 
the  personality  conflict  arose  because  the  applicant  found  it  necessary  to  counsel  the 
reporting officer about the inappropriateness of wrestling with a junior female officer 
on  the  bridge,  much  to  the  dislike  of  the  reporting  officer.    Still  others  attributed  the 
personality conflict to the fact that the applicant resisted the reporting officer's efforts to 
direct  changes  to  OERs  that  were  the  responsibility  of  other  members  of  the  rating 
chain.  A CO of a different cutter observed "a disconnect" between the applicant and the 
reporting  officer  with  respect  to  the  training  of  junior  officers  and  stated  that  the 
reporting officer thought the applicant was too much of a people-person.   
 

 
7.  The crewmembers described the relationship between the applicant and the 
reporting officer as not just "a disconnect," but as resentment because of the applicant's 
strong command presence and passion to do the right thing.  A senior chief petty officer 
wrote,  "a  personality  conflict  existed  between  the  applicant  and  the  reporting  officer 
because of the applicant's fantastic rapport with the crew and the reporting officer's lack 
of  rapport."    Accordingly,  the  Board  is  satisfied  that  there  was  a  personality  conflict 
between the reporting officer and the applicant exacerbated by the CO's obsession with 
and indecision about written work and his inability to be objective due to PTSD.   
 
 
8.  The Board finds that this personality conflict and perceived writing failures, in 
addition to the reporting officer's mental state, probably interfered with his objectivity 
where the applicant was concerned.  In this regard, the Board notes that several of the 
LTs  and  the  chief  petty  officers  stated  that  the  applicant  was  an  excellent  writer.  
Moreover,  the  CO  of  a  different  cutter  stated  that  he  referred  his  new  XO  to  the 
applicant for counseling and his new XO would have his correspondence reviewed by 
the applicant before submitting it to him.  In the reporting officer's first evaluation of 
the applicant he was very complimentary of the applicant's writing skills. However, in 
the  disputed  OER  he  stated  that  writing  was  not  the  applicant's  forte,  without 
explaining how the applicant's writing fell short.  The reporting officer's failure in this 
regard coincides with his statement and those of others indicating that toward the end 
of his tour he seemed depressed, moody and unfocused.  
 
 
9.    With  respect  to  the  applicant's  writing skills, several of the LTs on the ship 
stated  that  the  applicant  had  an  excellent  handle  on  writing  and  processing  OERs.  
Although the reporting officer returned many OERs, the evidence is overwhelming that 
they  were  returned  because  the  CO  was  substituting  his  judgment  for  that  of  the 
supervisors and reporting officers responsible for the OERs and not because of errors.  
In addition, the Assistant to the Director of the Atlantic Area's Major Cutter Forces, who 
served as the reviewer for junior officer OERs stated that the OERs he reviewed from 
the  applicant's  command  were  timely  and  of  the  highest  quality,  as  was  other 
correspondence.   
 
 
10.  The Board further questions the ability of the reporting officer to accurately 
evaluate  the  applicant  in  the  areas  of  writing  and  evaluations  due  to  his  own 
indecisiveness of what he wanted or expected in a written document.  Evidence in the 
record  states  that  the  reporting  officer  had  an  ever  changing  style;  that  he  made  so 
many changes to a document that the final copy would sometimes look and read very 
much like the original; and that his expectations were moving targets.  One LT wrote 
that  it  was  normal  to  have  routine  message  traffic  returned  ten  to  fifteen  times  for 
corrections.  This individual also stated that the reporting officer lost his overall focus, 
which  corroborates  the  reporting  officer's  statement  that  PTSD  interfered  with  his 
ability to focus. 
 
 
11.    In  light  of  the  above  evidence,  the  Board  is  persuaded that the challenged 
marks  and  comments  are  not  trustworthy  and  are  in  fact  erroneous.  The  Board  will 
direct  that  the  4s in both writing and evaluations be raised to a 5 and the challenged 
comments be deleted from the OER, since the applicant and the reporting officer agree 
that these marks should have been, at a minimum, 5s.  Because the reporting officer also 

served  as  the  supervisor  for  this  OER,  there  was  a  lack  of  the  checks  and  balances 
normally  present  in  the  evaluation  process.    The  Deputy  General  Counsel  ruled  in 
Docket  No.  411-91  that  "the  absence  of  a  second  review,  while  not  an  injustice  per  se, 
may be considered in determining whether an injustice has occurred."  Had this OER 
been  subjected  to  normal  checks  and  balances,  the  accuracy  of  the  applicant's 
performance in the writing and evaluations categories would not be as questionable.  
 
 
12.  With respect to the Coast Guard's argument that permitting a change in an 
OER after three years will dramatically compromise the officer evaluation system, the 
Board finds that if the applicant proves the existence of a prejudicial error or injustice in 
his record, he is entitled to have that error corrected.  The applicant has done so in this 
case.   
 
 
13.    The  Board  is  not  persuaded  by  the  Coast  Guard's  argument  that  since  the 
reporting officer was capable and qualified to exercise proper judgment to successfully 
command  a  cutter,  it  stands  to  reason  that  he  was  capable  of  completing  an  OER 
accurately.    The  evidence  in  this  case  is  overwhelming  that  he  did  not  accurately 
evaluate the applicant's performance in the disputed OER.  Moreover, in more than one 
of the statements submitted by the applicant, the individuals stated that the applicant, 
as XO, was the main reason for the success of the cutter.   
 
 
14.    The  Board  is  not  convinced  that  the  reporting  officer's  statement  is 
retrospective  reconsideration.    Although  written  subsequent  to  the  OER  and  the 
applicant's  failures  of  selection,  the  reporting  officer  clearly  states that the marks and 
comments  in  the  writing  and  evaluations  categories  are  in  error  because  he 
"inadvertently  left  in  place  markers  for  future  comments  and  forgot  to  round  out 
phrases  to  reflect  [his]  true  judgment."    More  importantly,  the  reporting  officer 
admitted that his judgment was impaired due to an inordinate amount of stress and the 
symptoms  of  PTSD.    In  addition,  officers  on  the  cutter  as  well  as  others  who  had  an 
opportunity  to  observe  the  reporting  officer  and  the  applicant  corroborated  much  of 
what the reporting officer wrote in his statement.  
 
 
14.    With  respect  to  the  removal  of  the  applicant's  failures  of  selection  for 
promotion to CDR, the Board finds that a nexus exists between the applicant's failures 
of  selection  for  promotion  and  the  challenged  comments  and  marks.    His  record 
certainly looks better with higher marks and the comments deleted from the OER.  In 
addition,  the  Board  finds  that  it  is  not  unlikely  that  he  would  have  been  selected  for 
promotion  to  CDR  in  1999  with  a  corrected  OER  in  his  record.    Therefore,  the 
applicant's  failures  of  selection  for  promotion  to  CDR  should  be  removed  from  his 
record.  The Coast Guard offered no arguments or evidence to the contrary, in contrast 
with  a  statement  offered  by  the  applicant  from  a  Coast  Guard  captain  with  selection 
board experience. 
 
 
15.  The Board notes that the 2002 CDR selection board selected the applicant for 
promotion to CDR with the disputed OER in his record.  However, the Board finds that 
the applicant's recent selection was the result of having earned additional strong OERs 
since 1999 and the diminishing negative impact of the disputed OER.    
 

16.  Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to relief. 

 
 

ORDER 

 
 
The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 
military record is granted. The OER for the period May 1, 1998 to April 30, 1999 shall be 
corrected as follows: 
 
 
 The mark in block 4.b. shall be raised to 5 and the following comment shall be 
deleted  from  the  block  4  comments:    "personal  talent  to  produce  fine  quality  wrk. 
However, not a forte.  Subord wrk of mixed qual; worked hard to improve, instituted 
proof reader prgm, resulted in dramatic reduction in errors." 
 

The  mark  in  block  5.f.  shall  be  raised  to  5  and  the  following  phrase  shall  be 

deleted from the block 5 comments section:  "req'd some add'l work." 

The applicant shall receive back pay and allowances, accordingly. 

 
 
The applicant's 1999, 2000, and 2001 failures of selection for promotion to CDR 
shall be removed form his record.  The applicant, having been selected for promotion to 
CDR by the 2002 CDR selection board, shall have his date of rank adjusted to the date 
he  would  have  received  if  he  had  been  selected  by  the  1999  CDR  selection  board.  
However, the applicant shall be given the option of accepting a date of rank based on a 
selection  by  the  1999,  2000,  2001,  or  2002  CDR  selection  boards  to  allow  him  an 
opportunity to build a record as a CDR before being placed before the captain selection 
board.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 Harold C. Davis, M.D. 

 
 Cynthia B. Walters 

        

 
 Barbara Betsock