DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                 BCMR Docket No. 2002-101 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

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.  It was docketed on May 21, 2002, upon the 
BCMR’s  receipt  of  the  applicant’s  application.    On  November  1,  2002,  the  applicant 
asked that his case be held in abeyance while he sought new evidence, which he sub-
mitted on April 17, 2003. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

This  final  decision,  dated  July  24,  2003,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST  

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record by removing an offi-
cer evaluation report (OER) that he received for his service as an ensign for the four and 
one-half months from September 16, 2001, through February 1, 2002.  
 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT'S RECORD  

 
 
On July 27, 2000, the applicant received a commission as an ensign in the Reserve 
and began a three-year active duty contract as an intelligence officer, analyzing infor-
mation gathered from field units.  On his first OER, covering his work through March 
31, 2001, he received fourteen marks of 4, four marks of 5, and a Comparison Scale mark 
of 4.1  His supervisor was Mr. X, Chief of the Intelligence section; his reporting officer 
(RO) was CDR X, Assistant Chief of the Law Enforcement and Intelligence branch; and 

                                                 
1  Officers are evaluated in various performance categories on a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 being best.  Of the 
seven possible marks on the Comparison Scale, a mark in the third, fourth, or fifth position describes the 
officer as “one of the many competent professionals who form the majority of this grade.” 

the reviewer of the OER was CDR Y, the branch chief.  Mr. X and CDR X made many 
positive comments in this OER, including the following regarding his potential: 
 

[He] has quickly adapted to the Coast Guard and become a fully contributing member of 
the intelligence section.  A self-reliant and confident attitude and approach have allowed 
rapid  progress  on  a  very  steep  learning  curve.    A  good  and  growing  ability  to  deliver 
results  in  a  variety  of  circumstances  bodes  well  for  the  future.    [He]  is  fully  ready  and 
recommended  for  positions  of  increased  responsibility.    Particularly  suited  for  assign-
ment as a deck watch officer or to a group operations staff.  Also an excellent candidate 
and fully recommended for flight training.  Recommended for on-time promotion to O-2. 

 
On the applicant’s second OER, covering his work from April 1 to September 30, 
 
2001, he received seven marks of 4, eight marks of 5, three marks of 6, and a mark of 4 
on the Comparison Scale.  His supervisor for this OER was a civilian intelligence officer, 
Mr. Y; Mr. X served as the RO; and CDR X served as the reviewer.  The comments on 
this OER were similarly positive to those he received on his first OER. 
 
 
The  third  OER  that  the  applicant  received  is  the  disputed  OER.    It  covers  his 
work as an intelligence officer in the same office from October 1, 2001, to January 31, 
2002.  It notes that his primary collateral duty was to serve as “Armory Liaison Officer.” 
  

 MARKS AND COMMENTS IN DISPUTED OER 

# 
CATEGORY 
3a  Planning and 
Preparedness 

3b  Using 

Resources 

3c  Results/ 

Effectiveness 

3d  Adaptability 
3e  Professional 
Competence 

4a  Speaking and 

Listening 

4b  Writing 

5a 

Looking Out for 
Others 

5b  Developing 

Others 

5c  Directing 

Others 

5d  Teamwork 

MARK  WRITTEN COMMENTS 

4 

4 

3 

4 
4 

4 

3 

6 

4 

4 

4 

“[The applicant] has had no formalized weapons management or administrative train-
ing and does not have a prior service ordnance designator, yet he has effectively 
managed the variety of activities and duties associated with being the [X] District 
Weapons Officer.  During this period [he] used exceptional initiative in arming numer-
ous Coast Guard MSOs, he acquired 263 M9 pistols, 68 M-16 rifles and 102 Rem-
mington shotguns.  In addition [he] responded favorably to unexpected increases in 
ammunition requirements by various units throughout the District.  [His] ability to 
positively respond to unusual demands resulted in him obtaining additional vessels 
from other Federal and State agencies to support the Coast Guard during the imme-
diate period post 9-11.  [He] also performed effectively as the Law Enforcement Duty 
Officer.  Unfortunately while [he] performed most of his duties effectively, he had to 
be counseled on more than one occasion about less than positive performance in 
some areas—e.g. excessive personal phone calls, reading non-work related materi-
als.  There were several instances where routine tasks such as preparing basic 
intelligence reports were completed late and not correctly.  [He] accepted construc-
tive criticism in a positive manner, and is putting forth effort to improve his 
performance in the needed areas.”  
“Strong communicator in briefing, training & social environments: provided clear and 
concise weekly briefs to [district] Senior Staff; effectively communicated Intel 
program and policies to field units.  Major player in re-designing the intelligence 
briefing; comfortable in a variety of social settings with personnel of all grades; takes 
direction well, however requires a significant amount of direction in complex 
situations.  Writing skills need significant improvement; often contained grammatical 
errors, did not meet requirements of assignment.” 
“Looking out for others: During the period provided transportation, on numerous 
occasions, to office members to medical appointments, he volunteered to take extra 
duty when the individual scheduled could not stand their duty, acted as sponsor for 
new staff members. Always displayed a great deal of respect to his senior officers, 
enlisted members and civilian employees.  Developing others: During this period 
obtained additional education opportunities for members of the ole staff.  He also 
assisted two potential officer candidates in completing their OCS packages.  
Provided guidance to unit CIO’s on intelligence collection and reporting.  Directing 

5e  Workplace 

Climate 
Evaluations 

5f 

6 
7 

8a 

Initiative 

8b 

Judgment 
 

8c  Responsibility 

 

8d  Professional 

Presence 
 

8e  Health & Well-

Being 

9 

Comparison Scale 

4 

4 

3 

5 

5 

3 

10  Potential 

NA 

5 

4 

others: During this period [he] was assigned more responsibilities associated with the 
CIO program due to personnel transfers.  In addition to his additional CIO 
responsibilities his position as Armory Liaison Officer became more demanding.  
[He] was able to use his professional yet relaxed leadership style to achieve good 
performance from all of his subordinates in the field.  Is a strong team player and 
works well with everyone in the office.  Input for own OER was on-time, complete.” 

Signature of Mr. Y, a civilian GS-12 intelligence officer acting as the applicant’s supervisor 
Reporting 
Officer’s 
Comments 

NA 

“Concur with supervisor’s marks and comments.  [The applicant] is generally ener-
getic and enthusiastic, especially on matters for which he has a passion.  The 
events of 9/11 resulted in a dramatic workload for weapons/ammo issues, which 
[he] attacked unhesitatingly.  [He] has struggled somewhat, however, with duties 
that involve work with which he is not familiar or not personally interested in and 
assignments that require extensive writing.” 
“Demonstrated strong initiative with re-arming of numerous units in wake of 9/11; 
likewise demonstrated good ability to think creatively when assigned to find tempo-
rary boat resources for homeland security mission; occasionally had to be 
reminded to research applicable directives when drafting policy/guidance corre-
spondence for field units; sometimes needed very specific task direction to suc-
cessfully complete assignments. … Discernment and judgment demonstrated as 
LEDO—consistently made good recommendations on LE cases; occasionally 
made poor use of work time to work on lower priority tasking at the expense of 
high priority assignments … Standards for quality of own work were not always 
acceptable—especially for correspondence; assignments were often completed 
just prior to or after deadlines; Uniform/grooming standards were excellent 
throughout period; usually represented command well to other units and outside 
the CG in variety of circumstances; dedication to military customs and protocol 
was excellent … Met COMDT weight standards; maintained fitness throughout 
period thru regular exercise program.” 

The Comparison Scale is not actually numbered.  The reporting officer is 
instructed to compare the evaluee with other officers of the same rank whom he 
has known and assign one of seven possible marks.  See footnote 2 above. 
“[The applicant] usually demonstrated a strong work ethic and, when given specific 
task direction, a good ability to get results.  Had more difficulty with independent 
work, especially work that required a more complex, multi-stage approach.  Imme-
diate and sustained improvement in this area will be necessary for [him] to be 
ready for promotion to O-3.  Excellent ability to get along well with subordinates, 
peers, and seniors in a variety of social an professional environments.  If expected 
improvement is realized, [he] will be capable of performing well in positions of 
greater responsibility.” 

11  Signature of CDR X, the assistant branch chief, as the reporting officer 
12  Signature of CDR Y, the branch chief, as reviewer 
 
 
On  January  27,  2002,  four  days  before  the  end  of  the  evaluation period for the 
disputed  OER,  the  applicant  was  promoted  to  lieutenant  junior  grade  (LTJG),  having 
been selected for promotion by an earlier selection board.  The applicant did not submit 
a  reply  to  the  disputed  OER,  as  allowed  under  Article  10.A.4.g.  of  the  Personnel 
Manual.  On his next OER, for the period February 1 to June 28, 2002, during which he 
was serving as Current Operations Officer of the same office, he received four marks of 
4, ten marks of 5, two marks of 6, and a mark of 4 on the Comparison Scale. 
 

 

SUMMARY OF APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS  

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  the  disputed  OER  is  invalid  because  it was not pre-
 
pared by his published rating chain; an unqualified civilian was allowed to rate him as 

his  supervisor;  the  supervisor  failed  to  keep  a  record  of  his  performance  during  the 
evaluation period; he received no mandatory counseling sessions at the beginning and 
end of the period; and the OER’s numerical marks are inconsistent with the comments.  
He  also  alleged  that  since  he  was  promoted  to  lieutenant  junior  grade  just  four  days 
before the end of the reporting period, the OER should show that he was an ensign. 
 

Regarding the rating chain, he stated that his supervisor was supposed to be the 
Chief of the Law Enforcement section, Mr. X; that his RO was to be the Chief of the Law 
Enforcement  and  Intelligence  Branch,  CDR  Y;  and  that  his  reviewer  was  to  be  the 
district’s  Chief  of  Operations,  Captain  Z.    He  submitted  a  copy  of  the  office’s  official 
1998  rating  chain  reflecting  these  assignments.    Instead,  he  pointed  out,  a  civilian 
intelligence  officer,  Mr.  Y,  acted  as  his  supervisor;  the  assistant  branch  chief,  CDR  X, 
acted as the RO; and CDR Y acted as the reviewer.2 

 
The applicant alleged that neither Mr. Y nor Mr. X had ever been trained in the 
Coast Guard’s Officer Evaluation System (OES), as required by Article 10.A.2.b.2.h. of 
the  Personnel  Manual,  and  failed  to  keep  records  of  his  performance,  as  required  by 
Article  10.A.2.d.3.    He  further  alleged  that  his  supervisor  never  provided  counseling 
sessions, as required by Article 10.A.2.d.3.   
 
 
The applicant also argued that if in fact his performance diminished so dramati-
cally during the four-month evaluation period, he should have been counseled about it.  
He alleged that if his performance truly declined, his rating chain should have included 
comments to show how it had declined in comparison to previous evaluation periods, 
when he received higher marks.3  He alleged that he learned of the poor quality of the 
OER when it arrived in the mail and that it came as a “complete surprise.”   
 

The  applicant  submitted  a  statement  signed  by  his  section  chief,  Mr.  X,  who 
served as the supervisor on the first OER he received at that office and as the RO on the 
second OER but did not serve on the rating chain for the disputed OER.  Mr. X stated 
that Mr. Y, the intelligence officer who served as the supervisor for the disputed OER, 
told  him  at  the  end  of  the  previous  evaluation  period  that  he  had  counseled  the 
applicant about his performance and that he had told the applicant that he had received 
“the benefit of the doubt” with regard to the marks he received on that prior OER.  Mr. 
X  also  stated  that  he  himself  had  counseled  the  applicant  about  his  performance  on 
other occasions but the counseling was never documented.  The applicant alleged that 
Mr. X’s statement that he had been counseled about his performance was false. 
 

                                                 
2  The record indicates that the published rating chain was not used for the applicant’s first two OERs at 
the office either:  On his first OER, Mr. X served as supervisor, CDR X served as RO, and CDR Y served as 
the reviewer.  On the second OER, Mr. Y served as supervisor, Mr. X served as RO, and CDR X served as 
the reviewer.  However, the applicant has not asked that these OERs be removed. 
3  In  addition  to  his  Coast  Guard  OERs,  the  applicant  included  in  his  application  several  very  positive 
evaluations he had received as an officer in the Army Reserve. 

 
The applicant alleged that because of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, 
he  was  working  “almost exclusively as the district weapons liaison officer during the 
four-month  evaluation  period  for  the  disputed  OER.”    He  alleged  that  he  was  given 
only  one  assignment  as  an  intelligence  officer  during  the  period.    He  alleged  that, 
although  he  was  an  ensign  and  “made  several  attempts  to  discuss  operations  and 
expectations with [his] supervisor” during the evaluation period, he “received no mid-
mark or performance based counseling during the entire period.”  He stated that after 
September 11, 2001, he “frequently requested a strategy meeting in order to redefine the 
role  of  the  intelligence  section  and  to  establish  priorities  of  work.”    He  alleged  that 
when he asked his supervisor about his assignments, he was told, “You have been an 
in-effective member of the intel shop.  It’s not your fault, but your armory duties have 
kept you busy.”  He alleged that, like the applicant in BCMR Dkt. No. 1999-142, he was 
entitled  to  counseling  if  his  performance  was  deemed  to  be  so  poor4  and  that  he  has 
proved that he was not counseled as required by Article 10.A.5. of the Personnel Man-
ual.  Therefore, he argued, the disputed OER should be removed from his record. 
 

The  applicant  also  argued  that  the  vague,  negative  comments  in  the  disputed 
OER do not properly support the poor marks.  Regarding the mark of 3 for “Results/ 
Effectiveness,”  the  applicant  pointed  out  that  just  four  months  earlier,  he  had  been 
assigned a 6 in this category.  He alleged that nothing in the comments warrants a 3 in 
this category and that his results in procuring more weapons and vessels for the field 
units were invaluable.  He pointed out that at least partly as a result of his work, the 
chief  of  his  office  received  a  Meritorious  Service  Medal.    He  submitted  a  copy  of  the 
citation for the medal, which states in part that the chief “was the driving force behind 
the  re-arming  of  Marine  Safety  Offices  and  multi-mission  station  boats  that  enabled 
them to accomplish the homeland security mission.” 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  never  counseled  about  receiving  personal 
 
phone  calls  or  reading  non-work  related  material  at  work.    He  alleged  that  just  one 
time,  on  January  11,  2002,  he  was  reading  a  publication  on  military  history  and  was 
asked to stop.  He alleged that in the disputed OER, his supervisor did not mention spe-
cific occasions when his intelligence reports had been late and incorrect. 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  during  the  evaluation  period,  because  of  the impor-
tance of his armory work, he was assigned only one project by the intelligence staff: to 
update the Command Intelligence Officer list.  Therefore, he alleged, the comment indi-
cating that he neglected “several” reports is inaccurate.  He alleged that this assignment 
was  not  as  high  a  priority  as  the  armory-related  issues  he  was  dealing  with,  but  he 
admitted that he did have trouble completing the task correctly. 
 
 
Regarding  the  mark  of  4  for  “Using  Resources,”  the  applicant  alleged  that  his 
accomplishments as District Weapons Officer during the period deserve a higher mark.  
                                                 
4  In BCMR Docket No. 1999-142, the Board held that that “[i]f the [executive officer] had such concerns 
about the applicant’s watchstanding during the 10-month evaluation period, the applicant was entitled to 
know about it.” 

He pointed out that he had received a mark of 6 in this category previously and that, if 
anything, his careful management of time, personnel, money, and information to get his 
armory work done was better than during the previous evaluation period. 
 
 
Regarding the mark of 4 for “Adaptability,” the applicant alleged that the mark 
is too low because the “armory and weapons issues required [him] to do a job that [he] 
was in no way trained for.”  He pointed out that on his previous OER, he received a 5 in 
this category. 
 
 
Regarding  the  mark  of  3  for  “Writing,”  the  applicant  pointed  out  that  his  two 
prior OERs state that he has strong writing skills.  He alleged that his supervisor pro-
vided no counseling with regards to his writing skills during the evaluation period.  He 
also alleged that his supervisor’s supporting comment about his needing a significant 
amount of direction in complex situations is vague and unsupported by specific exam-
ples.    He  complained  that  his  “[s]upervisor  does  not  define  complex  or  significant.”  
Moreover, he pointed out, other comments in the OER about his “exceptional initiative” 
in  arming  the  district  despite  his  lack  of  weapons  training  and  about  his  positive 
response to “unusual demands” strongly contradict his rating chain’s vague criticisms. 
 
 
Regarding  the  mark  of  4  for  “Teamwork,”  the  applicant  alleged  that  the  sup-
porting comments about how he frequently stood duty when other members were sick 
or  had  other  engagements  and  how  he  was  a  “strong  team  player”  support  a  higher 
mark.   
 
 
Regarding the comments of the RO in section 7 of the disputed OER, the appli-
cant complained that CDR X failed to mention any specific duties in which he was per-
ceived  to  be  uninterested.    He  argued  that  the  vague  statement  should  be  removed 
unless it can be supported with examples.  The applicant alleged that in January 2002, 
he asked CDR X for performance feedback and was told him to consult his supervisor.  
 
 
 Regarding the mark of 4 for “Initiative,” the applicant pointed out that he had 
previously received a mark of 6 for this category.  He argued that his initiative in re-
arming  units  after  September  11,  2001,  in  managing  and  accounting  for  the  district’s 
ordnance, and in procuring additional vessels from the National Marine Fisheries, the 
state’s  Marine  Patrol,  the  Army,  and  the  Navy  for  the  Coast  Guard’s  Noble  Eagle 
Patrols merited a higher mark for “Initiative.” 
 
 
Regarding  the  mark  of  3  for  “Responsibility,”  the  applicant  alleged  that  the 
supporting comments did not mention any specific examples of late or erroneous work, 
of high priority assignments that he ignored, or of any way in which he showed a lack 
of  integrity.    He  alleged  that  his  supervisor  never  counseled  him  about  his  responsi-
bility.  He also alleged that this mark is inconsistent with his receipt of a mark of 5 for 
“Professional  Presence”  since  both  categories  require  the  officer  to  work  “ethically, 
courageously,  and  dependably.”    Regarding  the  CDR  X’s  supporting  comment  about 
his  needing  to  be  reminded  to  consult  applicable  directives when drafting policy, the 

applicant  stated  that  “[t]here  have  been  a  few  occasions  where  I  was  instructed  to 
reference certain publications while drafting instructions.  That is growth.  I am a direct 
commission  officer  from  the  Army.    It  is  obvious  that  I  would  need  direction  when 
dealing with certain regulations, but there was never a time during this rating period 
when a supervisor had to frequently remind me to reference certain publications.” 
 
 
Regarding  his  CDR  X’s  comments  about  his  “Potential,”  the  applicant  alleged 
that the insertion of the work “usually” in this comment is both damaging and unex-
plained.    He  alleged  that  the  comment  about  his  having  difficulty  with  independent, 
complex work is erroneous and unsupported.  He pointed out that, to secure weapons 
for the district, he had to understand the MS Manual, MLE Manual, Ordnance Manual, 
Physical  Security  Manual,  and  the  Operation  Noble  Eagle  Use  of  Force  Policy  even 
though he had no training in these matters.  He alleged that even though no one on the 
district staff could help him, he managed to accomplish the re-arming of the district. 
 

In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted a letter from a lieutenant 
junior  grade  (LTJG  Z) in the office, who stated that the command never followed the 
published rating chain, that three experienced petty officers had sought transfers out of 
the office, and that although he had asked what his responsibilities were, he received no 
job description or list of responsibilities and instead was micromanaged. 

 

 
A chief radarman (RDC) in the office stated that, like the applicant, he had prob-
lems with Mr. X.  The RDC stated that Mr. X was “blatantly unethical” in his practices 
and “would frequently fail to provide guidance and support to subordinate members.”  
He alleged that Mr. X became agitated when asked for guidance and spent office time 
playing “fantasy football.”  However, because Mr. X was friends with CDR X, the assis-
tant  branch  chief,  it  was  “impossible  to  complain  about  [Mr.  X’s]  unprofessional 
behavior.”  The RDC stated that he himself performed well in the office and was never 
told otherwise.  However, when Mr. X purposefully failed to interview more qualified 
candidates for a civilian position so that he could give the job to a friend of his, the RDC 
reported him up the chain of command and, in retaliation, Mr. X and CDR X took away 
his chances for field assignments and gave him a poor recommendation on his applica-
tion to the Coast Guard Investigative Service. 

 
The RDC stated that upon his arrival, the applicant immediately noticed the lack 
of guidance and support from the command.  He stated that, even after September 11, 
2001, no one told the members of the intelligence section what their new responsibilities 
were  to  be.    When  the  applicant  told  the  RDC  that  he  had  never  received  any  job 
description or counseling, the RDC told him that “that was the way that [Mr. X] oper-
ated.”  In late December 2001, the RDC stated, the applicant told him that he had had an 
argument with Mr. X over the latter’s office policy and lack of professionalism.  After-
ward, Mr. X began talking about the applicant as if he were a troublemaker.  The RDC 
stated that his own treatment by Mr. X had convinced him to retire and that other peo-
ple in the office were also trying to leave prematurely. 

A yeoman first class (YN1) in the office stated that she had reviewed the appli-
cant’s  unit  personnel  file  and  “can  verify  that  no  negative  counseling-performance 
based documents exist.”  She also confirmed that three experienced petty officers in Mr. 
X’s section had “all requested to be transferred due to issues with their Civilian Super-
visors.”  One petty officer told YN1 that she was being threatened with negative marks 
if she was not “loyal” to Mr. X and that if she was loyal, she could “get very good marks 
and  anything  else  she  wanted.”    The  YN1  stated  that  she  herself  had  observed 
unprofessional and unethical behavior by the civilian leadership of the office and that 
one member who tried to question that behavior was “transferred from the section and 
[has] been labeled as a poor performer/trouble maker.”  She further stated that CDR X 
had  a  personal  relationship  with  the  civilian  supervisors  in  the  section  and  that  the 
branch chief, CDR Y, seemed unconcerned. 

 
A yeoman second class (YN2) who worked in a nearby office of the Coast Guard 
Investigative Service stated that “it was common knowledge that the Intelligence sec-
tion  had  supervisory  problems.    The  major  contributing  factor  would  be  lack  of  in-
formed guidance by civilian leaders.”  She stated that Mr. X made jokes about whether 
officers  “fit  in”  by  going  to  bars  with  him.    She  stated  that  the  applicant  “constantly 
asked  for  guidance  and  training  and  was  denied.”    She  stated  that  Mr.  X  hired  his 
friend, Mr. Y, for the secondary supervisory position and joked about the fact that only 
his friends would get hired in his “shop.”  Moreover, she stated, at the time, there was 
no  supervisory  guidance  for  the  section  and  anyone  questioning  the  ethics  of  the 
section’s practices would be labeled as poor performers.  She stated that the Intelligence 
section was known for its lack of professionalism. 

 
A telecommunications specialist second class (TC2) who started providing tech-
nical support to the Intelligence section in April 2002, after the evaluation period for the 
disputed OER, stated that he had noticed several violations of Coast Guard Information 
Security  Policy  and  reported  them  to  Mr.  Y  and  Mr.  X.    However,  they  told  him  to 
“disregard  the  established  reporting  policy  and  to  handle  the  violations  according  to 
their, [Mr. X’s and N’s] desires.”  TC2 told them he would not do so and reported the 
violations  to  the  proper  authorities  and  was  scolded  for  doing  so.    In  a  closed-door 
meeting,  Mr.  X  and  Mr.  Y  told  him  that  he  would  receive  “any  school  or  class”  he 
wanted  if  he  was  a  “team  player.”    TC2  stated  that  he  perceived  their  statements  as 
threatening and told his supervisor, LTJG Z.  Mr. X and Mr. Y heard of his complaint, 
and he was “branded as the office troublemaker.”  Thereafter, he alleged, Mr. X and Mr. 
Y  frequently  made  untrue  statements  about  his  work  and  professionalism,  and  he 
received  lower  than  average  marks  on  his  own  evaluation  because  Mr.  X  and  Mr.  Y 
changed the marks assigned to him by LTJG Z.  TC2 stated that it was “widely known 
around the office that [Mr. X and Mr. Y] gave [the applicant] poor marks as retribution. 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  April  17,  2003,  the  Commander  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command 
(CGPC) submitted an advisory opinion recommending that the Board grant the appli-

cant’s request and the additional relief of adding a page of reviewer’s comments to the 
second  OER  the  applicant  received  from  the  office,  since  the  reviewer  is  supposed  to 
add a page of comments when both the supervisor and RO are civilians.  
 
 
CGPC  stated  that  although  the  applicant  was  an  ensign  during  most  of  the 
evaluation period, it was proper for him to receive an OER as an LTJG on January 31, 
2002, under Article 10.A.3.a.4.b. of the Personnel Manual.  CGPC further stated that the 
applicant’s  command  had  not  updated  the  office  rating  chain  since  1998,  leaving  the 
applicant unable to properly identify his rating chain and know who would be evalu-
ating his performance.  In addition, CGPC stated that the applicant’s command failed to 
use the Officer Support Form (OSF) to counsel him about his performance at the begin-
ning and end of the evaluation period, as required for ensigns and LTJGs under Articles 
10.A.6.a.  and  10.A.2.c.3.  of  the  Personnel  Manual.    CGPC  concluded  that  there  “is  no 
evidence to support that Applicant received the proper professional development with 
regard to his OER, rating chain responsibilities, [or] rating chain expectations.”   
 
 
CGPC stated that declarations signed by Mr. X and Mr. Y (summarized below) 
indicate that the applicant “was afforded informal counseling, guidance and prompting 
to progress professionally during the evaluation period.”  However, CGPC stated that 
there “is no proof that applicant did receive counseling as required at the beginning and 
end of his reporting periods.”  In addition, CGPC admitted, Mr. Y had never received 
OES  training,  which  would  make  it  “very  difficult  for  [him]  to  properly  supervise 
applicant especially given Applicant’s very limited personal experience with the OES.” 
 
 
CGPC  concluded  that,  although  the  applicant  failed  to  submit  “clear  and  con-
vincing evidence that the facts noted in his OER did not accurately depict his perform-
ance,” the fact that his supervisor was not trained in the OES and the irregularities sur-
rounding  the  rating  chain  are  sufficient  to  justify  removal  of  the  disputed  OER.    In 
addition, CGPC stated that reviewer comments for the applicant’s second OER should 
be drafted by CGPC and placed in the applicant’s record for continuity purposes only. 
 
Declaration of Mr. Y, Supervisor for the Disputed OER 
 
 
Mr. Y stated that during the evaluation period in question, it was his responsi-
bility to assign the applicant intelligence-related duties and to review his intelligence-
related reports.  Mr. Y stated that when he was first hired, he had been told the appli-
cant was a “leadership challenge in that it was hard to get him to write good reports, 
and that there had been several incidents where field units had complained about his 
behavior.”  Mr. Y stated that the applicant’s reports were “often late, poorly written, or 
incomplete.”    Mr.  Y  stated  that  before  he  prepared  the  OER  preceding  the  disputed 
OER, he told the applicant that he needed to try harder, work without complaining, and 
watch what he said to people in and out of the office.  “When the time came for his first 
evaluation,  I  made  the  mistake  of  inflating  his  marks.    This  attempt  at improving his 
performance did not work, in fact I believe it had a negative impact.”  Mr. Y alleged that 
the applicant spent a lot of time talking to friends on the phone and reading non-work-

related  books  during  working  hours.    Mr.  Y  stated  that  the  “only  major  project”  he 
assigned  the  applicant  during  the  evaluation  period  was  to  update  the  Command 
Intelligence Officers Roster and that it took the applicant an “extremely long time to get 
this done, and it was not done correctly.”   
 

Mr. Y stated that he spoke with the applicant twice about his performance dur-
ing the evaluation period but did not document the counseling because he “thought as 
an officer [the applicant] would at least try to improve.”  When the time came to pre-
pare the disputed OER, CDR X told him that it should reflect the applicant’s actual per-
formance.  However, after Mr. Y completed his portion of the OER, CDR X “changed 
my evaluation significantly and raised all of [the] marks.” 
 
Declaration of Mr. X, Chief of the Intelligence Section 
 
 
Mr. X stated that he had discussed the applicant’s performance with him on sev-
eral occasions and told him that his writing needed improvement and that his reports 
should be submitted on time and without spelling errors.  Mr. X stated that the appli-
cant was also counseled when someone from another unit with whom the applicant was 
working  complained  “that  his  work ethic was less than desirable.”  Mr. X stated that 
during the evaluation period for the disputed OER, someone from a different unit that 
the applicant had been sent to assist also complained of the applicant’s behavior.  Mr. X 
stated  that he counseled the applicant on this occasion, but the applicant told CDR X 
that the complained of incident never occurred. 
 
 
Mr. X stated that the OER preceding the disputed OER had inflated marks and 
comments.  Although the rating chain members agreed that the applicant’s performance 
had been “lacking in several areas,” they agreed to give him “the benefit of the doubt” 
to  encourage  him  since  he  was  an  ensign.    Mr.  X  stated  that  Mr.  Y  was  instructed  to 
counsel the applicant that the marks were higher than he deserved and that he needed 
to  improve  his  performance  to  earn  similar  marks  on  his  next  OER.    Mr.  Y later told 
both  Mr.  X  and CDR X that he had completed that counseling and that the applicant 
said he understood. 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On  April  21,  2003,  the  BCMR  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  Coast  Guard’s 
views  and  invited  him  to  respond.    The  applicant  responded  on  May  5,  2003,  stating 
that  he  agreed  with  the  Coast  Guard’s  recommendation  that  the  disputed  OER  be 
expunged and that a reviewer’s page for continuity purposes be added to the previous 
OER.  He stated that, although the issue may seem moot in light of CGPC’s recommen-
dation and the clear violations of the Personnel Manual, he “would like to go on record 
as stating [in response to the two declarations] that no such offenses or counseling state-
ments ever occurred.”  He alleged that with no documentation of counseling, the Board 
must  assume  that  he  was  performing  his  duties  according  to  his  command’s  expec-
tations.  He alleged that the disputed OER was prepared in retribution for a personal 
confrontation he had with Mr. X, and stated that although “verbal disputes are hard to 
prove or disprove,” the record is clear that Mr. X and Mr. Y were untrained in the OES 
and unqualified to serve on his rating chain or to evaluate him properly. 

 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS IN THE PERSONNEL MANUAL 

 
 
Every  officer has a “rating chain” of three senior personnel, including a super-
visor (usually the person to whom the reported-on officer answers on a daily basis), the 
reporting  officer  (usually  the  supervisor’s  supervisor),  and  the  reviewer  (usually  the 
reporting officer’s supervisor).  Personnel Manual, Articles 10.A.2.d.1., e.1., and f.1. 
 
Responsibilities of the Rating Chain 
 
 
Article 10.A.2.b.2.b. provides that commanding officers are responsible for desig-
nating and publishing the command’s rating chain so that officers will know who will 
be evaluating them.  Article 10.A.2.b.2.h. states that commanding officers are responsi-
ble  for  ensuring  that  any  civilian  employee  who  must  be  on  a  rating  chain  receives 
formal training from CGPC and that “[c]ivilians shall not be assigned to a rating chain 
before  receiving  OES  training  certification  from  Commander,  (CGPC-opm)  or  Com-
mander (CGPC-rpm) and having incorporated the OES rating chain responsibilities in 
their Core Competencies.” 
 
Article 10.A.1.c.5., states that “[n]o specific form or forum is prescribed for per-
 
formance feedback except for ensigns and lieutenants (junior grade).  Performance feed-
back  occurs  whenever  a  subordinate  receives  advice  or  observations  related  to  their 
performance in any evaluation area.  Performance feedback can take place formally (e.g. 
during a conference) or informally (e.g., through on-the-spot comments). … If the feed-
back is not fully understood, it is the Reported-on Officer’s responsibility to immediate-
ly seek clarification.” 
 
 
Article 10.A.1.b.2. states that “[i]ndividual officers are responsible for managing 
their  performance.    This  responsibility  entails determining job expectations, obtaining 
sufficient  performance  feedback,  and  using  that  information  to  meet  or  exceed  stan-

dards.”    Article  10.A.2.c.2.k.  provides  that  it  is  the  responsibility  of  the  reported-on 
officer  to  seek  performance  feedback,  “as  necessary,”  from  the  supervisor.    It  also 
provides  that  the  reported-on  officer  “[a]ssumes  ultimate  responsibility  for  managing 
own performance, notwithstanding the responsibilities assigned to others in the rating 
chain.  This includes ensuring performance feedback is thorough ... .”  
 
 
Article 10.A.2.c.3., entitled “Mandatory meeting and use of the OSF for ensigns 
and  lieutenants  (junior  grade),”  states  that  “[a]ll  Reported-on  Officers  in  these grades 
must request initial and end of period meetings with their Supervisors … .” 
 
Article 10.A.2.d.2.d. provides that the supervisor is to use the OSF provide per-
 
formance feedback by noting important aspects of the officer’s performance, including 
problems, achievements, failures, and personal qualities.  Article 10.A.2.d.3. states that 
supervisors “shall conduct beginning and end-of-period meetings and are required to 
maintain  a  record  of  significant  performance  related  events  for  all  Reported-on  Offi-
cers” in the grades of ensign and lieutenant junior grade.  Article 10.A.2.d.2.e. states that 
it is the supervisor’s responsibility to “[p]rovide[] performance feedback to the Report-
ed-on Officer upon that officer's request during the period or at such other times as the 
Supervisor deems appropriate.”  
 

Article 10.A.2.f. provides that the reviewer “[e]nsures that the OER reflects a rea-
sonably consistent picture of the Reported-on Officer’s performance and potential.”  In 
addition,  for  any  officer  whose  reporting  officer  is  a  civilian  (non-SES),  the  reviewer 
must prepare a separate page of comments for the OER to describe the officer’s poten-
tial. 

b.    For  each  evaluation  area,  the  Supervisor  shall review the Reported-on Officer's per-
formance and qualities observed and noted during the reporting period.  Then, for each 
of  the  performance  dimensions,  the  Supervisor  shall  carefully  read  the  standards  and 
compare the Reported-on Officer's performance to the level of performance described by 
the standards.  The Supervisor shall take care to compare the officer's performance and 
qualities against the standards—not to other officers and not to the same officer in a pre-
vious  reporting  period.    After  determining  which  block  best  describes  the  Reported-on 
Officer's performance and qualities during the marking period, the Supervisor fills in the 
appropriate circle on the form in ink. 

•   •   • 

 

Instructions for Preparing an OER 

 
Article 10.A.3.a.4.b. provides that “[o]fficers promoted to commander, or below, 
during  a  reporting  period  shall  apply  the  submission  criteria  for  the  grade  to  which 
promoted to determine when their next OER is due (e.g., O-1 promoted to O-2 on 20 
January shall do a 31 January O-2 semiannual OER).” 

 
Article 10.A.4.c.4. instructs supervisors to assign marks and write comments for 
the first 13 performance categories on an OER as follows (nearly identical instructions 
appear in Article 10.A.4.c.7. for reporting officers, who complete the rest of the OER): 
 

d.  In the "comments" block following each evaluation area, the Supervisor shall include 
comments citing specific aspects of the Reported-on Officer's performance and behavior 
for each mark that deviates from a four.  The Supervisor shall draw on his or her observa-
tions, those of any secondary supervisors, and other information accumulated during the 
reporting period. 
 
 e.    Comments  should  amplify  and  be  consistent  with  the  numerical  evaluations.  They 
should  identify  specific  strengths  and  weaknesses  in  performance.    Comments  must  be 
sufficiently specific to paint a succinct picture of the officer's performance and qualities 
which  compares  reasonably  with  the  picture  defined  by  the  standards  marked  on  the 
performance dimensions in the evaluation area.  Mere repetition or paraphrasing of the 
standards is not sufficient narrative justification for below or above standard marks. 

g.  A mark of four represents the expected standard of performance.  Additional specific 
performance observations must be included when an officer has been assigned a mark of 
five or six to show how they exceeded this high level of performance. …  

•   •   • 

•   •   • 

i.  All comments shall be confined to the space allotted to the Supervisor. No comments 
shall be continued from one comment block to another. 

 
Article  10.A.4.c.8.a.  instructs  the  reporting  officer  to  complete  the  Comparison 
 
Scale on an OER by filling in the circle that most accurately reflects the RO's ranking of 
the reported-on officer in comparison to all other officers of the same grade whom the 
RO has known. 
 
 
or conduct which occurred outside the reporting period.” 

Article 10.A.4.f. prohibits a rating chain member from mentioning “performance 

Replies to OERs 
 
 
Article  10.A.4.g.  allows  an  officer  to  file  a  reply  to  any  OER  within  14  days  of 
receiving it to “express a view of performance which may differ from that of a rating 
official. …  Comments pertaining strictly to interpersonal relations or a personal opin-
ion of the abilities or qualities of a rating chain member are not permitted.” 

 

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: 
 
 
The application was timely. 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  he  received  no  counseling  that  his  superiors 
 
were unhappy with his performance.  However, both Mr. X and Mr. Y have stated that 
counseling did occur on several occasions, although an OSF was not used to document 
the counseling, as required by Article 10.A.2.d.2.d. of the Personnel Manual.  The Board 

The Board has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552.  

  
1. 

2. 

4. 

finds that the preponderance of the evidence in the record indicates that the applicant 
was in fact counseled about his performance and knew that his superiors were unhappy 
with  his  performance  and wanted him to improve, even though they decided to give 
him good marks on the OER for the evaluation period ending September 30, 2001. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that he received low marks in the disputed OER in 
retribution for a disagreement that he had with his superiors.  However, he presented 
no evidence of the alleged dispute.  Neither the applicant nor any of his coworkers who 
wrote  statements  on  his  behalf  provided  details  of  any  serious  dispute  between  the 
applicant and the members of his rating chain or a convincing explanation as to why his 
rating chain would be biased against him. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that the marks and comments in the disputed OER 
are inconsistent and inaccurate and that the negative comments are too vague.  How-
ever, the Board finds that each of the marks lower or higher than the standard of four is 
adequately  supported  by  negative  or  positive  comments  and  that  the  comments  are 
“sufficiently specific to paint a succinct picture of the officer's performance and quali-
ties,” as required by Article 10.A.4.c.4. of the Personnel Manual.  The Board finds that 
the marks and comments in the OER are sufficiently consistent and specific to meet the 
requirements  of  Article  10.A.4.c.4.    Although  the  applicant  alleged  that  the  disputed 
OER  should  have  contained  much  fuller  and  more  specific  explanations  of  how  his 
performance  had  diminished  in  each  of  the  various  categories,  such  explanations  are 
not required by the Personnel Manual, and under Articles 10.A.4.a.3. and 10.A.4.c.4.i., 
rating chain members are limited to the space provided on the OER form and cannot 
use tiny type to allow room for more comments. 
 

6. 

The applicant failed to take advantage of his opportunity to reply to the 
disputed OER in accordance with Article 10.A.4.g. of the Personnel Manual.  If an OER 
contains  inaccuracies  or  omits  positive  information  about  an  officer’s  performance,  
Article 10.A.4.g. allows the officer to address such inaccuracies and include the positive 
information in the OER in a way that allows his rating chain to reconsider the marks 
and comments and, if warranted, assist the officer in having the OER corrected by the 
BCMR.    If  the  applicant  had  filed  a  reply,  the  truth  of  the  disputed  comments  might 
have been investigated and either verified or denied by the other members of his rating 
chain and command.  Although the applicant’s failure to file a reply has made deter-
mining the truth of the matter more difficult, the Board finds that he did not waive his 
right to seek removal of the disputed OER by the BCMR when he failed to file a reply.  
See  BCMR  Docket  No.  64-88(R),  Decision  on  Application  for  Reconsideration.    An 
officer’s failure to file a reply is not an admission of the accuracy of the OER.   

5. 

 
7. 

The applicant alleged that the disputed OER should indicate that he was 
an ensign during the evaluation period since he was promoted to LTJG just four days 
before the final day of the period.  However, the Board finds that, pursuant to Article 
10.A.3. a.4.b. of the Personnel Manual, the OER properly reflects his rank as a LTJG. 
 

8. 

The  Coast  Guard  has  admitted  that  the  applicant’s  commanding  officer 
failed  to  publish  his  rating  chain,  as  required  by Article 10.A.2.b.2.b.  The purpose of 
such publication is to ensure that each officer knows who will be evaluating him, whose 
expectations  he  must  meet,  and  from  whom  he  should  seek  performance  feedback.  
Although the command did not publish the applicant’s rating chain, the supervisor, RO, 
and reviewer for the disputed OER had all served on the applicant’s rating chain before.  
No one had recently left or joined his proximate chain of command.  Moreover, there is 
no evidence in the record suggesting that the applicant did not know during the evalua-
tion period for the disputed OER exactly who would be evaluating him, whose expec-
tations he had to meet, and from whom he should seek feedback.  Therefore, although 
the  applicant’s  command  violated  Article  10.A.2.b.2.b.  by failing to publish the rating 
chain,  the  Board  finds  that  the  error  was  harmless.    The  applicant  has  not  shown  or 
even alleged that he suffered from any confusion during the reporting period over who 
would be evaluating him. 

The  Coast  Guard  has  admitted  that  Mr.  Y,  the  civilian  supervisor  who 
prepared the applicant’s disputed OER, was not properly trained in the Coast Guard’s 
OES  and  therefore  was  not  qualified  to  serve  on  his  rating  chain  under  Article 
10.A.2.b.2.h. of the Personnel Manual.   In addition, the Coast Guard has admitted that 
Mr.  Y  failed  to  use  the  OSF  to  counsel  the  applicant  about  his  performance  at  the 
beginning  and  end  of  the  evaluation  period.    In  light  of  these  deficiencies,  the  Coast 
Guard has recommended that the Board remove the disputed OER from the applicant’s 
record.   

 
9. 

 
10. 

 
11. 

The  applicant  has  not  proved  the  existence  of  any  error  in  the  disputed 
OER.    However,  if  Mr.  Y  had  received  formal  OES  training,  it  is  possible  that  the 
applicant would have received more thorough counseling about his performance that 
could have persuaded him to conform his efforts to meet the expectations of the rating 
chain.    In  addition,  since  Mr.  Y  was  not  trained,  it  is  possible  that,  as  the  applicant 
alleged,  Mr.  Y  based  some  of  the  negative  marks  and  comments  on  the  applicant’s 
performance  during  the  previous  evaluation  period,  when  he  was  assigned  more 
intelligence work.  Basing marks and comments on an officer’s performance during a 
different evaluation period is prohibited under Articles 10.A.4.c.4. and 10.A.4.f. of the 
Personnel Manual.  The exact extent of the harm caused by Mr. Y’s lack of training is 
unknown.  Therefore, and in light of CGPC’s belief that the rating chain irregularities 
were sufficiently prejudicial to warrant removal of the disputed OER, the Board finds 
that the OER should be removed from the applicant’s record. 

CGPC noticed in reviewing the applicant’s record that the reviewer for his 
OER  covering  the  period  April  1  to  September  30,  2001,  should  have  but  failed  to 
prepare a comment page in accordance with Article 10.A.2.f. of the Personnel Manual 
because the reporting officer for the OER, Mr. X, was a civilian.  The applicant agreed 
with this recommended correction. 
 

12.  Accordingly, relief should be granted. 

 

 

 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 

ORDER 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of 

his military record is granted.   

 
His  officer  evaluation  report  (OER)  for  the  period    October  1,  2001,  through 
January 31, 2002, shall be removed from his record and replaced with an OER prepared 
“for continuity purposes only.”  

 
In  addition,  CGPC  shall  add  a  “for  continuity  purposes  only”  reviewer’s 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 Julia Andrews 

comment page for his OER  for the period April 1 to September 30, 2001. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 Nancy Lynn Friedman 

 
 George J. Jordan