DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2002-083 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Deputy Chair: 
 
 
This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 
425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  The Board docketed the case on April 5, 2002, 
upon receipt of the application. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

This final decision, dated January 16, 2002, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST FOR RELIEF 

 

 

 

The applicant asked the Board to correct her date of rank as a commander (CDR) 
and her position on the active duty promotion list to the date and position she would 
have had had she been selected for promotion in xxxx.  She was not selected for promo-
tion until xxxx, when her record was reviewed by a second selection board.  She also 
asked for the backpay and allowances she would be due with a corrected date of rank. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT'S ALLEGATIONS AND RECORD 

The  applicant  alleged  that  the  president  of  the  first  CDR  selection  board  to 
review  her  record,  Captain  X,  had  been  irrationally  biased  against  her  since  August 
19xx.  At the time, she was a lieutenant and had been serving as the commanding officer 
(CO) of a station since July 19xx.  In August 19xx, the Deputy Group Commander, CDR 
W,  was  her  direct  supervisor;  Captain  X,  the  Group  Commander,  was  her  reporting 
officer; and the Captain Z, the District Chief of Search and Rescue, was her reviewer.  

 
While  serving  as  the  station  CO,  the  applicant  received  six  officer  evaluation 
reports (OERs).  The first two of these, summarized as OERs 1 and 2 in the table below, 
were  completed  by  her  supervisor  and  Captain  X’s  predecessor.    They  contain  many 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-083                                                                p. 2  

highly  laudatory  comments,  such  as  “top  performer,”  “exceptional  leadership,”  and 
“should be seriously considered for accelerated promotion.” 

 
In 19xx, Captain X became the Group Commander.  The applicant alleged that, 
initially, he gave her very positive feedback about her performance.  OERs 3 through 6, 
which  appear  shaded  in  the  table  below,  are  signed  by  Captain  X  as  the  reporting 
officer.  All four OERs contain very positive comments and recommendations for pro-
motion “with peers.”  However, the applicant alleged, Captain X’s attitude toward her 
changed  abruptly  in  August  19xx,  when  she  had  a  conversation  with  him  “during 
which  she  told  him  that  she  had  enjoyed  working  for  [Captain  Y]”  at  a  unit  she  was 
assigned to four years earlier.  The applicant alleged that when she stated this, Captain 
X’s  “expression  and  attitude  immediately  changed  upon  the  mention  of  that  officer’s 
name” and he ended the discussion suddenly with a sarcastic remark.  She alleged that 
a few hours later in the evening, Captain X called her at home and ordered her to report 
to his office the next morning for “mentoring.” 

 
The applicant alleged that the next morning, Captain X lectured her for several 
hours  on  why  she  should  never  have  any  contact  with  Captain  Y  again.    She  alleged 
that Captain X told her that “everyone in the District,” including the District Chief of 
Search and Rescue, “was very upset that she had enjoyed working with [Captain Y].”  
Captain X told her that he would be her mentor.  Moreover, she alleged, “[i]n a drama-
tic reversal of attitude, he unexpectedly expressed an opinion that the manner in which 
[she] ran the station was not the way a female officer should behave.”  Later, the appli-
cant alleged, she learned that Captain X had had problems with Captain Y when Cap-
tain Y was his commanding officer during a previous assignment. 

 
The applicant alleged that until she transferred to a new assignment ten months 
later, she was frequently summoned to Captain X’s office (often several times per week) 
for “mentoring” devoted almost exclusively to explanations of why she should not have 
enjoyed working for Captain Y and of how a female station CO should conduct herself.  
She alleged that the “unwarranted harassment” by Captain X also included 

 

•  revoking her authority to conduct investigations and dispositive legal proceed-

ings without cause or explanation for three months; 

threatening to relieve her of her command; 

• 
•  convening an unauthorized investigation of her station, without cause, and fail-

ing to advise her of its purpose; 

•  violating protocol by arriving at her station unannounced, without checking in, 

acting secretively, and leaving without ever informing the officer on duty; 

•  bypassing  the  chain  of  command  by communicating directly with her subordi-

nate, the station’s executive officer; 

• 
insisting that she make appointments with his secretary to speak to him; 
•  secretly altering the parameters of an inspection so as to embarrass her; 
•  assigning her staff to perform work that conflicted with required duties; and 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-083                                                                p. 3  

•  accusing her of discrimination when she tried to enforce Coast Guard policy after 
a  female  member  was  the  victim  of  prohibited  hazing;  initially  refusing  to  convene  a 
captain’s  mast  for  the  perpetrators;  and  conducting  a  “sham”  mast,  during  which  he 
wondered  aloud  why  their  behavior  was  not  accepted  at  her  station  when  it  was  at 
other stations, joked with the perpetrators, and dismissed the charges. 

 
The  applicant  argued  that,  while  these  incidents might seem minor taken indi-

vidually, taken together during the ten-month period, they amount to harassment. 

 
The applicant alleged that near the end of her tour, Captain X threatened to give 
her an adverse OER, and he prepared a draft with low marks and comments attacking 
her  personality.    (OERs  5  and  6  were  completed  after  he  allegedly  became  biased 
towards her.)  However, she alleged, her reviewer, Captain Z, intervened and stopped 
Captain X from giving her the adverse OER.  She alleged that they had a very unpleas-
ant meeting during which Captain Z suggested that any trouble she was having might 
be the result of Captain X’s own performance.  OER 6 in the table below is the evalua-
tion she ultimately received.  She argued that an affidavit submitted by Captain Z on 
her behalf (see below) proves her allegations about Captain X’s bias against her. 

 
The applicant alleged that Captain X resented Captain Z’s intervention and pun-
ished her by arranging for her to receive only an Achievement Medal without an opera-
tion device for her tour of duty, instead of the usual Commendation Medal received by 
station COs.  She argued that his actions with respect to her OER and the award prove 
that he was ready and willing to act on his prejudice against her. 

 
After completing her tour at the station, the applicant was assigned to an impor-
tant analysis project at Headquarters from June 19xx through July 19xx, during which 
period she received OERs 7 through 9 in the table below.  She was promoted to lieuten-
ant commander in 19xx.  In 19xx and 19xx, she attended school and received a master’s 
degree in public administration.  From September 19xx through April xxxx, she served 
as the chief of a branch at Headquarters, for which she received OERs 10 and 11.   

 
In July xxxx, the applicant failed of selection for promotion to CDR with Captain 
X serving as president of the selection board.  At the time, OERs 1 through 11 were in 
her record, as well as nine older OERs, and she had received three Achievement Medals 
(including one for her service as station CO) and two Commendation Medals, as well as 
several other unit awards, service medals, and letters of appreciation.  After serving a 
year  as  an  assistant  liaison  officer,  she  received  OER  12  and  a  third  Commendation 
Medal and was selected for promotion in July xxxx. 

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  her  failure  of  selection  by  Captain  X  and  the  CDR 
selection board in July xxxx was a statistical anomaly, given her excellent record and the 
fact that the opportunity for selection by that board was 66 percent.  She pointed out 
that every other candidate who was a station CO was selected for promotion and that 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-083                                                                p. 4  

another officer who had enrolled in graduate school (as she had) was selected for pro-
motion.  She argued that some factor other than her actual record must have caused her 
failure of selection and that the factor was Captain X’s unfair and irrational bias against 
her.  She argued that, given his bias, he should have recused himself from participating 
in selection board’s consideration of her record.   

 
The  applicant  argued  that  since  selection  board  members  are  sworn  to  secrecy 
and  the  Coast  Guard  fails  to  keep  statistics  about  the  performance  records  of  officers 
selected and rejected for promotion, it is impossible for her to submit evidence of what 
actually happened and how her record compared with those of other candidates.  How-
ever,  she  argued,  the  BCMR  should  draw  the  obvious  inferences  from  her  military 
record and the affidavits she has submitted and find that, but for Captain X’s influence 
as president, she would have been selected for promotion in July xxxx. 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-083                                                                p. 6  

SUMMARIES OF AFFIDAVITS 

 
Affidavit of Captain Z, District Chief of Search and Rescue 
 
 
In support of her allegations, the applicant submitted an affidavit by Captain Z, 
who  was  the  District  Chief  of  Search  and  Rescue  and  the  applicant’s  reviewer  while 
Captain X was her reporting officer.  Captain Z stated that in 19xx he “became aware of 
a  situation  developing”  between  the  applicant  and  Captain  X.   Captain Z stated that, 
when he reviewed a draft OER the applicant was to receive as station CO, he noted that 
there  were  inconsistencies  between  the  marks  and  comments  and  that  some  of  the 
comments  were  inappropriate.    He  stated  that  he  had  counseled  Captain  X  on  his 
responsibilities with respect to the applicant on at least two occasions.  He alleged that 
he told Captain X that the content of the draft OER he had prepared for the applicant 
“seemed to be unsupported and the tenor of the narrative comments might be setting 
him up for some criticism, including appropriate numerical scores and comments in his 
own  upcoming  OER.”    He  alleged  that  Captain  X  seemed  to  receive  the  message  he 
intended  to convey and altered the OER.  Captain Z stated that the meeting between 
himself and Captain X was very unusual and memorable and that he is “sure that its 
nature would cause [Captain X] to remember it, as well.” 
 
 
Captain Z further stated that at the end of the applicant’s tour, Captain X award-
ed her an Achievement Medal, rather than the Commendation Medal other station COs 
received,  even  though  her  performance  and  accomplishments  were  equal  to  those  of 
other station COs. 
 
 
Finally, Captain Z stated that he was surprised and disappointed that the appli-
cant failed of selection in xxxx.  He stated that, knowing the excellence of her record and 
the  situation  that  existed  between  her  and  Captain  X,  he  is  “concerned  that  some 
irregularity occurred in her consideration for selection by that Board.” 
 
Affidavit of CWO Z 
 
 
The applicant submitted an affidavit from a chief warrant officer, CWO Z, who 
worked in the District Search and Rescue Office for Captain Z.  CWO Z stated that in 
19xx he became aware that Captain X was dissatisfied with the applicant’s policies and 
management of her station and was threatening to relieve her of command.  He stated 
that Captain Z met with Captain X and “took him to task.”  He alleged that Captain Z 
told  him  that  he  had  informed  Captain  X  that  the  problems  developing  at  the  appli-
cant’s station were likely due to Captain X’s own failures and that he would ensure that 
the applicant was not the only one blamed for them.  CWO Z alleged that Captain X 
was  “very  unhappy”  after  the  meeting.    He  stated  that  given  that  situation  and  that 
applicant’s failure of selection, he “cannot help but be concerned about the fairness of 
her  failure  of  selection.”    He  suggested  that  Captain  X  should  have  recused  himself 
from the selection board’s deliberations with respect to her record.  

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-083                                                                p. 7  

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On September 25, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard submitted an advi-

 
 
sory opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny the applicant’s request. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel argued that “[a]bsent strong evidence to the contrary, govern-
ment officials are presumed to have carried out their duties correctly, lawfully, and in 
good faith.” Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United 
States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979); Muse v. United States, 21 Cl. Ct. 592, 601 (1990).  
Moreover,  he  pointed  out,  under  14  U.S.C. § 254, selection board members are sworn 
“to  perform  their  duties  without  partiality  or  prejudice.”    The  Chief  Counsel  argued 
that  the  applicant  has  failed  overcome  the  presumption  of  regularity  because she has 
failed to submit any “clear and convincing evidence of improper prejudice or conduct 
on the part of the President” of the selection board in July xxxx.   
 

The  Chief  Counsel  argued  that  the  “anecdotal  comments”  of  Captain  Z  and 
CWO Z do not substantiate her allegations.  He stated that neither affiant was privy to 
the  deliberations  of  the  selection  board  or  to the records of the other candidates who 
were selected for promotion in xxxx.  Therefore, he argued, their statements amount to 
irrelevant  speculation.    He  alleged  that,  while  the  applicant  and  Captain  x  may  have 
had a difficult relationship in 19xx and 19xx, she has “failed to show how the difficult 
command relationship affected the impartiality of the President of the Board [Captain 
X] or other members.” 
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  enclosed  with  his  advisory  opinion  a  memorandum  on  the 
case prepared by the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC).  CGPC stated that the 
xxxx CDR selection board comprised Captain X as president and another captain and 
five commanders as members.  CGPC stated that the selection board’s precept provided 
that the members “may not predicate judgments on rumor or hearsay.”  Because under 
14 U.S.C. § 261(d) selection board members are sworn to secrecy, they could not divulge 
why the applicant was not selected. 
 
 
CGPC further stated that with 144 officers “in the zone” for promotion to CDR in 
xxxx and 119 open slots, the stated “opportunity for selection” that year was 83 percent.  
However,  because  20  percent  of  the  121  officers  who  were  eligible  for  promotion  but 
considered “above the zone” because they had failed of selection once already, only 66 
percent of the “in the zone” candidates were actually selected.  CGPC also stated that, 
in  addition  to  OER  marks,  the  selection  board  members  are  advised  to  consider  the 
candidates’  “performance,  professionalism,  leadership  and  education.”    CGPC  stated 
that an “officer can have an excellent record and still fail of selection for promotion as a 
result of the competition involved.” 
 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-083                                                                p. 8  

 
CGPC pointed out that, under the precept, any decision by the board regarding a 
candidate had to be agreed upon by at least two-thirds of the members.  Therefore, “it 
must  be  presumed  that  no  one  member  would  introduce  prejudice  into  the  selection 
process,  or  that  any  prejudice  inappropriately  introduced  would  be  agreed  upon  by 
two-thirds of the members.” 
 
 
Regarding the medal the applicant received, CGPC stated that, when Captain X 
recommended an Achievement Medal for the applicant in 19xx, Captain Z could have 
forwarded it to the District Commander with his own recommendation that the award 
be upgraded to a Commendation Medal.  Furthermore, CGPC stated that the addition 
of an operational device to an Achievement Medal is only appropriate when “the major 
achievements  used  to justify the particular award are operational vice administrative, 
and  the  individual  participated  ‘hands  on’  in  the  operational  achievements.”    CGPC 
stated that operational devices are “often not awarded to officers who have command-
ed shore units such as a station.” 
 
 
Regarding the applicant’s OERs prepared by Captain X, CGPC pointed out that 
they are very good, that she did not appeal them, and that Captain Z did not attach a 
page  of  his  own  comments,  as  was  his  prerogative  if  he  disagreed  with  Captain  X’s 
assessments.  CGPC also pointed out that the applicant never filed a complaint against 
Captain X for harassment. 
 
 
Finally, CGPC opined that the applicant may have failed of selection because her 
record  is  not  strong  in  the  areas  of  professionalism  and  leadership.    CGPC  explained 
that after her assignment as station CO, she had “staff jobs,” and that her “career track 
has had neither the breadth or the growth within specialty required by the Precept that 
would improve her competitiveness against her peers in the operations ashore special-
ty.”  In her fifteen years as an officer (she had prior enlisted service), she spent ten at 
Headquarters or in graduate school and “only five of those [years] at operational units.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On September 30, 2002, the Chairman forwarded a copy of the Chief Counsel’s 
advisory opinion to the applicant and invited her to respond within fifteen days.  The 
applicant was granted an extension and submitted a response on November 7, 2002. 
 
 
The  applicant  argued  that  because  the  deliberations  of  selection  boards  are 
secret,  officers  such  as  her  who  have  been  unfairly  denied  a  promotion  because  of 
prejudice can only present circumstantial evidence of that prejudice and ask the Board 
to  draw  a  logical  conclusion.    Moreover,  she  argued,  the  conclusion  that  Captain  X’s 
prejudice caused her failure of selection is supported by the fact that in xxxx she was 
selected for promotion when she was already “above the zone,” when the chances for 
promotion  are  much  lower.    She  submitted  a  copy  of  ALPERSCOM  078/02,  which 
shows that only 13 percent of the “above the zone” officers were promoted in xxxx. 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-083                                                                p. 9  

 

The  applicant  further  argued  that  the  conclusion  that  Captain  X’s  prejudice 
caused her failure of selection is strongly supported by the fact that she was selected for 
promotion  “based  on  essentially  the  same  record”  in  that  the  additional  OER  she 
received before the board met in xxxx is “substantially the same” as her previous OERs 
and the staff liaison billet she held in the interim was not a high-profile or particularly 
career-enhancing assignment.  She alleged that when she requested her current assign-
ment “for geographic and tour-length reasons only,” no one else requested it and, since 
she began the assignment, only one officer has inquired about it, and he was interested 
in it only because of its geographic location as well.  The applicant argued that her selec-
tion  for  promotion  in  xxxx  without  additional  operational  or  leadership  experience 
refutes CGPC’s speculative statements about why she failed of selection in xxxx. 

 
Therefore,  the  applicant  concluded,  her  assignment  and  performance  between 
the xxxx and xxxx selection boards cannot have made the difference in the outcomes of 
those boards.  She alleged that the only significant difference in circumstances between 
xxxx and xxxx was the fact that Captain X was not on the board in xxxx.  She argued 
that this Board should logically conclude that Captain X’s prejudice caused her failure 
of selection in xxxx.  In addition, she pointed out that, if in xxxx, the regular selection 
board members were tied 3-3 about whether to select her, Captain X would have been 
called upon to break the tie, and out of prejudice, he would have rejected her.   
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 

 
According to 14 U.S.C. § 254, every member of a selection board must swear an 
oath that “he will, without prejudice or partiality, … perform the duties imposed upon 
him.”  Under 14 U.S.C. § 261(d), “[e]xcept as required by this section, the proceedings of 
a selection board shall not be disclosed to any person not a member of the board.” 
 

According to 14 U.S.C. § 260, each selection board must submit a written report, 
signed by all members, containing the names of the officers recommended for promo-
tion.  The report also must certify that the officers recommended for promotion are the 
best qualified. 
 
Article 14.A.4.i. of the Personnel Manual prescribes: “Except for its Report of the 
 
Board, the board members shall not disclose proceedings or deliberations to any person 
not a member of the board (14 U.S.C. 261).” 
 
 
The  selection  board  precept,  issued  on  July  24,  xxxx,  instructed  the  board  to 
select the best 119 candidates, out of 144 “in the zone” officers and 121 “above the zone” 
officers, on the basis of their performance, professionalism, leadership, and education.  
The precept also advised board members that the Coast Guard needs “technologically 
oriented”  officers  with  professional  growth  in  their  specialties,  “leadership  and 
competencies  commensurate  with  the  next  rank,”  and  “the  ability  to  form  effective 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-083                                                                p. 10  

partnerships  within  and  without  the  service.”    Paragraph  7  of  the  precept  states  the 
following: 
 

At the end, all members must be able to say that the officers recommend-
ed for promotion are in the opinion of at least two-thirds of the members 
of the Board, the best qualified to carry out the duties and responsibilities 
of the grade for which they are selected. … [M]embers should be remind-
ed that in the process of their evaluation they must confine themselves to 
facts of record and may not predicate judgments on rumor or hearsay. 

 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

3. 

The  Board  has  jurisdiction  concerning  this  matter  pursuant  to  10 U.S.C. 

 
 
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: 
 
 
§ 1552.  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  made  many  allegations  about  the  reason  and  degree  to 
which Captain X was biased against her.  However, the affidavits she submitted indi-
cate only that, during her last year as station CO, some problem arose that caused Cap-
tain X to want to relieve her of command and give her an adverse OER and that he was 
stopped  from  doing  so  by  Captain  Z  in  a  memorable  and  heated  counseling  session.  
Captain  Z’s  affidavit  indicates  that  he  stopped  Captain  X  from  including  inconsistent 
and inappropriate comments in her OER.  Captain Z did not state that Captain X had 
harassed her or was irrationally biased against her because of her comment about Cap-
tain Y or for any other reason.  Nor did CWO Z state that Captain X harassed her or 
was irrationally biased against her, although he did state that Captain Z told him that 
the problem between the applicant and Captain X was likely due to Captain X’s own 
failures.    At  most,  the  affidavits  indicate  that  Captain  X  strongly  disapproved  of  the 
applicant’s  performance  and/or  attitude,  that  he  drafted  an  OER  with  inappropriate 
comments  for  her,  and  that  Captain  Z  disagreed  with  him  to  some  extent  about  his 
assessment of the applicant. 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  she  should  have  received  a  Commendation 
Medal  for  her  service  as  station  CO  and  that  her  failure  to receive one is evidence of 
Captain X’s unjust bias.  In his affidavit, Captain Z stated that some officers whose per-
formance and accomplishments were equal to those of the applicant received Commen-
dation Medals.  However, the Board finds that Captain Z’s retrospective reflection on 

1. 

2. 

4. 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-083                                                                p. 11  

this matter does not prove that Captain X’s determination that her performance merited 
an  Achievement  Medal  without  an  operational  device  was  erroneous  or  unjust.    As 
CGPC pointed out, if Captain Z had felt strongly about the matter at the time, he could 
have recommended her for the Commendation Medal. 
 

5. 

Absent  strong  evidence  to  the  contrary,  the  Board  presumes  that  Coast 
Guard officers perform their duties as selection board members correctly, lawfully, and 
in good faith.  See Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. 
United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979).  Furthermore, the Board notes that Con-
gress  has  purposefully  protected  selection  boards’  deliberations  from  scrutiny  and 
challenge by making them secret under 14 U.S.C. § 261(d).  To merit relief, an applicant 
must submit at least some clear and persuasive evidence that an error or injustice exists 
in her record, and she must prove the existence of the error or injustice by a preponder-
ance of the evidence. 

The applicant has presented clear and convincing evidence that Captain X 
was dissatisfied with her performance and/or attitude in 19xx and 19xx.  However, the 
only  evidence  in  the  record  supporting  her  allegation  that  his  dissatisfaction  was 
wrong, biased, or irrational is the fact that Captain Z decided to stop him from giving 
her an adverse OER with comments he considered inappropriate.  While their counsel-
ing  session  may  have  been  memorable,  the  applicant’s  and  affiants’  statements  about 
what  effect  it  may  have  had  on  the  selection  board’s  proceedings  five  years  later  are 
purely speculative.  There is no evidence in the record that, in xxxx, Captain X harbored 
any  irrational  bias  or  animosity  toward the applicant, that he communicated it to the 
other  members  of  the  selection  board,  or  that  it  affected  the  outcome  of  the  board’s 
deliberations.  

 
6. 

 
7. 

 
8. 

The applicant alleged that the fact that she was selected for promotion in 
xxxx with a similar record is also evidence that Captain X’s presidency of the board in 
xxxx caused her failure of selection.  While it is true that the OER she received in the 
interim  between  the  two  selection  boards  cannot  be  considered  to  have  substantially 
improved  her  record,  she  did  receive  a  third  Commendation  Medal  in  the  interim.  
Moreover,  the  candidates  considered  by  the  xxxx  selection board were different from 
the candidates considered in xxxx.  Therefore, the Board cannot find that her selection 
for promotion by the xxxx board based on a similar but not identical record proves that 
her failure of selection by the xxxx board was caused by some unjust bias on the part of 
that board’s president, Captain X. 

While  her  excellent  record  indicates  that  the  applicant  was  very  well 
qualified for promotion to CDR in xxxx, nothing in her record proves that she was more 
fit for promotion than the 119 lieutenant commanders who were chosen.  Moreover, the 
factors taken into consideration by a selection board are not limited to OER marks and 
comments  but  are  myriad,  as  indicated  in  the  selection  board’s  precept  and  Article 
14.A.3.  of  the  Personnel  Manual.    Although  the  applicant  has  proved  that  Captain  X 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-083                                                                p. 12  

was  dissatisfied  with  her  performance  and/or  attitude  in  19xx  and  19xx  to  an  extent 
Captain  Z  found  unreasonable,  the  Board  cannot  find,  on  the  basis  of  the application 
and the record before it, that the selection board erred in performing its duties when it 
did not select her for promotion. 

The preponderance of the evidence in the record indicates the applicant’s 
record was properly considered by the xxxx selection board and, absent convincing evi-
dence  of  bad  faith,  prejudice,  or  irregularity  in  those  proceedings,  the  Board  has  no 
grounds  for  substituting  its  judgment  for  that  of  a  duly  convened  selection  board  of 
experienced Coast Guard officers. 

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

 
9. 

 
 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Barbara Betsock 

 

 

 

 
 Harold C. Davis, M.D. 

 

 

 

 
 Cynthia B. Walters 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-083                                                                p. 13  

 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  her 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

military record is denied.