DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
 
Application for Correction of  
Coast Guard Record of: 
 
 
 
    

 
 
 
BCMR Docket  
No.  2002-103 
 

  FINAL DECISION 

This final decision, dated March XX, 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 May 21, 2002, upon the 
Board'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. 
 
Request for Relief 
 
 
The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  record  by  removing  an  officer 
evaluation report (OER) for the period June 1, XXXX to May 31, XXXX (disputed OER).  
He  further  asked  that  if  he  has  failed  to  be  selected  for  lieutenant  commander  at  the 
time the Board decides his case that the Board remove the failure of selection and direct 
that his record be placed before the next selection board as an in zone officer.   He also 
requested backdating of his date of rank and back pay, if he is selected by the first board 
to consider him based on a corrected record.  Last, he requested that the Board reinstate 
him to active duty if he has been involuntarily retired at the time the Board decides his 
application.   The applicant was not selected for promotion by the most recent LCDR 
selection Board that met in XXXX. 
 

EXCERPTS FROM RECORD AND SUBMISSIONS 

 
 
The  disputed  OER  is  the  second  one  received  by  the  applicant  while  at  the 
command in question.  The applicant alleged that the disputed OER is not an objective 
evaluation of his performance and is based upon misleading information and a bias or 
prejudice against him by the reporting officer and commanding officer (CO).   
 
OER marks, in general, range from 1 to 7, with 7 being the highest mark.  In the 
 
supervisor's  portion  of  the  disputed  OER,  which 
includes  the  performance, 
communication,  and  leadership  skills  sections,  the  supervisor  assigned  the  applicant 
mostly marks of 4, with three 3s (adaptability, workplace climate and evaluations), and 

to  document 

Block  4.  comments:    "Sent  2  emails  with  inappropriate  tone  and  allegations 

one  5.    Many  of  the  comments  were  favorable  but  included  some  criticisms  of  the 
applicant's performance as described below: 
 
 
Block  3.  comments:    "Slow  to  adopt  new  [programs]/technologies;  scoffed  at 
proposed  risk  based  assessment  of  small  pax  vsls;  apprehensive  about  use  of  Palm 
Pilots 
inspections;  non-support  created  delay  &  uncertainty 
w/subordinates." 
 
 
to/about senior officer compounded error by copying others outside unit/district." 
 
Block  5  comments:    "Created  unhealthy  work  environment;  w/out  consulting 
 
supervisor, dictated unreasonable policies such as severely limiting who could sign qual 
books - conveyed lack of confidence & mistrust; demoralized dept. . .   Failed to meet 
own OER rating duties narratives vague, lacked impact, and paraphrased performance 
standards.    Ignored  supervisor's  counseling  on  submission  requirements  delayed 
submission  then  during  Dept  head's  absence,  attempted  to  delegate  responsibility  & 
directed officer outside rating chain to write supervisor comments; required significant 
revision by Reporting Officer."     
 
 
In the reporting officer's officer portion of the OER, which included the personal 
and  professional  qualities  section  of  the  OER,  the  applicant  received  two  4s  in  the 
initiative and health and well-being categories, one 3 in professional presence, and one 
2 in responsibility. In addition to some positive comments, the reporting officer wrote 
the following: 
 

 

[Block  7  comments:]  [H]arsh  leadership  style  & insubordinate demeanor 
caused  removal  [from]  asst  dept  head.    He  made  derogatory  comments 
about  performance  of  personnel  to  their  peers;  he  showed  disdain  for 
efforts  of  OMB  when  CO  was  not  present  &  sent  email  bordering  on 
insubordination. 

[Block  8.  comments:]  Solid  technical  judgment,  i.e.  during  shipyard 
repairs, application of safety standards, brokering settlement agreements 
w/mariners but poor judgment dealing with personnel.  Inappropriately 
misrepresented  relationships  between  self  &  senior  officers  in  order  to 
manipulate  supervisor  &  subordinates.    Spent  5  months  recounting 
injustice  of  reassignment;  openly  complained  LAMs  training  waste  of 
time.  After request for early transfer denied by CGPC, sent email alleging 
others  had  sabotaged  career,  put  in  chit  to  avoid  an  all  hands  team 
building exercise.  Poor military bearing before all hands when presented 
BZ  [bravo  zulu]  ltr1.    Reassigned  to  investigations,  provided  training 
opportunities to understand how to be team player; improve supervisory 

                                                 
1 Bravo zulu letter is sometimes referred to in this opinion as a letter of appreciation. 
 

skills.    Failed  to  seize  opportunity,  twice  refused  to  consider  or  work 
toward move-up to Assistant of Investigations Dept.  

 
 The applicant received a mark of 2 in block 9., which represented the reporting officer's 
officer's  opinion  of  the applicant as a marginal performer when compared with other 
LTs  the  reporting  officer  has  known  throughout  his  career.      The  reporting  officer 
described the applicant's potential for assuming greater leadership and responsibility as 
follows: 
 

Limited  potential  for  promotion.    Assign  to  inspection  or  investigation 
billets.    Has  technical  skills  of  an  O3,  but  not  leadership  or  mentoring 
skills  expected  of  a  supervisor.    As  result  was  removed  from  assistant 
department head position.  He failed to treat his personnel or supervisor 
with  honor  and  respect.    Very  capable  of  criticizing  others,  often  in  a 
harsh, derogatory manner, but unable to take criticism or counseling. 

 
Applicant's Allegations and Arguments 
 
During the period covered by the disputed OERs the applicant was relieved of 
 
duty  as  the  Assistant  Chief  of  the  Inspections  Department  of  a  Marine  Safety  Office 
(MSO) due to the CO's loss of trust in the applicant's ability to lead the department. The 
reporting  officer  and  the  reviewer  for  the  disputed  OER  were  the  same  persons  who 
had  commended  the  applicant  for  his  leadership  skills,  dedication,  work  ethic  and 
support  for  his  subordinates  on  an  OER  for  the  previous  reporting  period.    The 
applicant  stated that the description of his performance in the disputed OER contrast 
sharply with the high caliber of performance described in his other OERs.  
 

The applicant alleged that the disputed OER was prepared by a supervisor who 
was  unaware  of  the  actual  facts  surrounding  the  applicant's  performance  during  the 
period and was adversely affected by the bias of the reporting officer.  He alleged that 
the  reporting  officer  provided  inaccurate  information  to  the  supervisor  and  reviewer 
causing him to receive a less than objective OER. 
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  when comparing the disputed OER to the immediate 
previous OER it is noticeable that a reporting chain that once praised his work ethnic 
and the support he showed for his subordinates now viewed him as the source of the 
problems within the department.  The applicant argued that this perception on the part 
of the reporting officer and reviewer was based on a meeting between the reviewer and 
the other officers, in the absence of the applicant.  According to the applicant, the junior 
officers claimed that they were afraid of the applicant because he had allegedly brought 
a firearm to his office at his previous command.  He stated that the reviewer, who was 
also the commanding officer (CO), permitted the meeting to degenerate into requests by 
the  junior  officers  that  the  applicant  be  removed  as  their  supervisor.    The  applicant 
claimed  that  as  a  result  of  this meeting the CO removed him as assistant head of the 
inspections department without investigating the allegations against him by the junior 
officers.  The applicant claimed that the junior officers wanted him dismissed from the 

job as assistant department head because they resented being supervised by him since 
they  had  been  assigned  to  the  command  longer  than  he  had.    According  to  the 
applicant, after he appealed the CO's decision relieving him of his duties,2 both the CO 
and reporting officer were openly hostile toward him. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that in addition to the complaints by the junior officers, the 
CO 's decision to relieve the applicant as assistant department head was based in part 
on  allegations  that  the  applicant  had  "implemented  changes  in  the  [inspections 
department]  without  the  knowledge  of  his  supervisor."    The  applicant  claimed  that 
prior to implementing any changes, he discussed them with his supervisor, who agreed 
with  them  and  told  the  applicant  to  implement  any  changes  the  applicant  deemed 
necessary.    The  applicant  alleged  that  some  of  his  subordinates  complained  to  the 
reporting officer that the changes implemented by the applicant were an affront to the 
reporting  officer,  who  had  previously  headed  the  investigations  department  before 
becoming  the  executive  officer  (XO).    The  applicant  claimed  that  both  the  supervisor 
and  reviewer  were  well  aware  of  his  plans  to  implement  changes  within  the 
department.  
 
The applicant alleged that the reporting officer had a strong personality conflict 
 
toward him, which is evidenced by the comment in the reporting officer's portion of the 
OER that the applicant "showed disdain for the QMB in the absence of the commanding 
officer."  The applicant stated that it was the reporting officer who showed disdain for 
the applicant at that meeting.  According to the applicant, the reporting officer "was so 
abusive  to  the  [applicant]  in  front  of  all  persons  attending  the  meeting  that  he  was 
counseled  by  the  District  Quality  Performance  Consultant  for  his  abhorrent  behavior 
toward the [applicant]." 
 
 
The applicant denied the reporting officer's comment in the disputed OER that 
he  showed  poor  military  bearing  when  he  was  presented  with  a  Bravo  Zulu  letter 
during an "All Hands" ceremony.  The applicant stated that three statements from other 
individuals, which are discussed later in this decision, contradicted the XO's comment 
that he showed poor military bearing.   
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  the  reporting  officer  deliberately  mislead  the  CO  as 
well  as  the  applicant's  rating  chain  supervisor3  about  the  applicant's  performance, 
resulting  in  an  adverse  OER.    The  current  OER  supervisor  was  not  the  applicant's 
supervisor for the entire reporting period. He began serving in the rating chain after the 
applicant was relieved of duty as the assistant department head.  The applicant argued 
that  the  supervisor's  evaluation  of  his  performance  while  in  the  assistant  department 
head  position  was  based  in  part  on  erroneous  information  from the reporting officer.  
As an example, the applicant stated that another officer was present when the applicant 
                                                 
2   Apparently, the applicant's appeal of the CO's decision to relieve him of his duties was denied.  There 
are no appeal documents in the military record and the applicant did not submit any. 
 
3      The  supervisor  on  the  disputed  OER  was  not  the  applicant's  supervisor  at  the  time  these  events 
occurred.   

informed  his  supervisor  about  the  proposed  changes  and  has  prepared  a  statement 
contradicting  the  reporting  officer's  statement  that  the  applicant  failed  to  inform  his 
supervisor of the changes he planned to make in the department.   
 
Applicant's OER reply 
 

The applicant filed a reply to the disputed OER, which is in the military record 
along  with  endorsements  from  the  supervisor,  reporting  officer,  and  reviewer.    The 
applicant  challenged  several  other  comments  in  the  OER  reply  that  he  did  not 
specifically challenged in his application.  This decision only addresses those issues in 
the OER reply and related documents that are before the Board.   

 
In  the  reply  to  the  OER,  the  applicant  challenged  the  comments  about  his 
demeanor  and  attitude  toward  the  QMB.    He  stated  that  he  was  never  counseled 
regarding his leadership style, although the XO counseled him on his demeanor when 
they had a difference of opinion on a technical issue.  With respect to the comment that 
he  showed poor military bearing when presented with a letter of appreciation (bravo 
zulu (bz)) , the applicant wrote in his reply that he stood and listened reflectively while 
the  letter  was  read  aloud.    He  then  thanked  the  CO  and  returned  to  his  seat.    In  his 
reply, the applicant also challenged comments about having disdain for the QMB and 
instituting changes without informing his supervisor. 

 
In response to the applicant's OER reply, the supervisor stated that he received 
direct  input  from  the  applicant  previous  supervisor,  who  had  been  the  applicant's 
supervisor  for  40%  of  the  reporting  period.    The  reporting  officer  wrote  that  the 
applicant "did not discuss the policy changes with CID and forcefully imposed his own 
policy on Branch Chiefs."  

 
The XO responded to the applicant's OER reply by stating that he stood by his 
evaluation  of  the  applicant's  performance.    He  stated  that  despite  counseling  the 
applicant  failed  to  modify  his  leadership  style  or  interpersonal  behavior,  but  rather 
continued to berate subordinates and display extremely poor judgment in his dealings 
with personnel in his chain of command.   The XO stated that at the presentation of the 
letter  of  appreciation,  the  applicant  "stood  with  his  hands  in  his  pockets,  shifting 
uneasily, and at one time rolled his eyes."  The XO described the applicant's action as 
"turning the ceremony into a very public display of disrespect. 

 
In his response, the CO wrote that he removed the applicant from his duties as 
assistant  department  head  because  he  had  a  "loss  of  trust  and  confidence  in  [the 
applicant's] abilities to lead the department."  He stated it was a difficult decision, but it 
was necessary considering the overall needs of the department.  He stated that instead 
of  the  applicant  providing  the  leadership  necessary  to  nurture  and  grow  the  junior 
officers, he caused turmoil within the department.  He stated that the applicant recently 
began to accept his reassignment to the investigations department.   
 
Statements Submitted by the Applicant 

 

The applicant submitted several statements in support of his application.   They 

are summarized below. 
  
1.  A lieutenant commander (LCDR) wrote that he witnessed unfair treatment of 
 
the applicant by the CO.  He stated that he attended the meeting in which the junior 
officers allegedly vigorously attacked the applicant's character, without interruption by 
the CO.   Six of them requested that the applicant be removed as their supervisor.  "This 
meeting was a public flogging session of [the applicant] and no attempts were made to 
structure it otherwise.  [The CO] relieved [the applicant] of his duties before he returned 
from leave and without consultation."  He stated that the applicant took the issue of his 
relief to the work-life staff and to District Fourteen staff.  "To say the CO and XO  . . . 
were hostile toward [the applicant] after this would be an understatement."  He stated 
that the command attempted to do a special OER on the applicant but was prevented 
from doing so by District Fourteen.  He stated that the denial of the applicant's request 
for a transfer were vindictive.   
 

This individual stated that the applicant shared an office with his then supervisor 
and  spent  a  significant  amount  of  time  with  him  and  the  CO  discussing  inspection 
issues.    "[The  supervisor  and  CO]  were  well  aware  of  the  daily  business  within  the 
Inspection Department and had ample opportunity to adjust [the applicant's] priorities 
prior to being relieved of duties." 
 
 
The  LCDR  stated  that  he  was  present  at  the  presentation  of  a  letter  to  the 
applicant, and he did not witness any disrespect.  He stated that the reporting officer 
had  a  serious  personality  conflict  with  the  applicant  and  that  many  others  had  been 
abused  or  mistreated  by  the  reporting  officer  including  himself.    In  this  regard,  he 
stated that the reporting officer removed a recommendation for XO on one of his OERs 
without notifying the supervisor. According to the LCDR, the CO said that he thought 
the  LCDR  deserved  the  recommendation  but  refused  to  do  anything  about  it,  stating 
that  he  had  to  support  the  reporting  officer,  who  was  his  XO.    He  stated  that  the 
reporting  officer  mistreated  another  officer  by  claiming  that  he  was  an  unauthorized 
absentee.  He stated that he believe the applicant to be a good officer and an honorable 
person.   
 
 
same department, wrote the following: 
 

2.    Another  individual  who  worked  at  the  same command although not in the 

During conversations with [the applicant] I learned that he was trying to 
bring his under trained and partially inexperience staff up to speed.  Some 
of the inspectors [whom the applicant supervised] were at the unit before 
[the applicant] arrived, and resented being pushed by the new guy.  The 
resentment finally manifested itself during a meeting between the CO and 
the junior officers in the command about how to make the unit function 
more efficiently.  [The applicant] was on leave.  Though unintended, the 
entire meeting turned into a discussion about [the applicant] and how he 

carried out his duties as the Assistant Chief of Inspections.  I was amazed 
at some of the allegations, including an officer being concerned about their 
physical safety when they were alone in the building with [the applicant].  
I had a strong impression during the meeting that some of the officers had 
an  agenda  beyond  altering  [the  applicant's]  behavior.    They  clearly 
wanted him dismissed and would not settle for anything less.   
 
The applicant was dismissed when he returned to work.  The speed with 
which  this  happened  was  unusual.    From  my  vantage  point  in  Port 
Operations  I  was  not  aware  of  any  effort  by  the  XO  [the  applicant's 
reporting  officer]  to  intercede  on  [the  applicant's]  behalf,  which  is  again 
unusual.    
 
Writing this letter has left me as numb as I felt when this first happened.  
Though I've observed and heard of officers being dismissed for worse, I 
have never observed anything similar to [the applicant's] dismissal in my 
15 years in the Coast Guard.  From all I can tell he is a fine officer and a 
high performer.   

 

* 

I  was  present  during  a  discussion  between  [the  applicant  and  his 
supervisor  prior  to  his  being  relieved  of  his  duties].    [The  applicant] 
brought some department shortcomings to [his supervisor's] attention that 
he remedied the situation by changing policy.  [The applicant] stated that 
he  was  being  a  little  hard  on  the  inspectors  and  wanted  to  know  if  his 
approach  was  okay.    [The  supervisor]  stated  that  he  [the  applicant]  was 
handling  the  situation  properly  and  to  continue  with  any  changes  he 
deemed necessary in the future.   
 
 
 
This  individual  stated  that  some  officers  complained  directly  to  the  executive 
officer  about  the  changes  implemented  by  the  applicant  and  left  the  XO  with  the 
impression  that  the  changes  made  by  the  applicant  were  a  criticism  of  the  XO's 
leadership when he was the department head.  The CWO4 stated that as a result, the 
XO was openly critical of the applicant.  As an example of the XO's hostility toward the 

 
 
3.  A chief warrant officer -W4 (CWO4) wrote that he had observed the applicant 
being mistreated and abused by the reporting officer.  By way of example, he provided 
the following: 
 

I recall an occasion where our former [XO] verbally abused [the applicant] 
concerning his handling of the QMB.  [The applicant] was the MSO QMB 
facilitator  and  did  an  outstanding  job  in  this  position.    Nevertheless,  on 
this occasion, our former [XO] verbally abused [the applicant] in front of 
all  of  the  attendees.    His  demeanor  was  so  abusive  that  .  .  .  [the] 
Fourteenth  District  Quality  Performance  Consultant  counseled  [the  XO] 
concerning his abhorrent behavior toward [the applicant].   
 

* 

* 

applicant,  the  CWO4  offered  the  XO's  comment  that  the  applicant  was  insubordinate 
when  the  CO  awarded  him  a  letter  of  appreciation.    The  CWO4  stated  that  he  was 
present during the ceremony and the applicant acted respectfully and professionally at 
all times.   
 
 
4.    A  Lieutenant  (LT)  wrote  that  he  was  in  attendance  at  the  QMB  meeting  in 
which the XO accused the applicant of showing "disdain for the efforts of  QMB when 
CO  was  not  present."    The  applicant  as  the  QMB  facilitator  became  involved  in  a 
discussion about the direction of the QMB.  According to the LT, the applicant stated 
that  the  XO  as  the  senior  command  representative  should  make  such  a  decision,  to 
which  the  XO  took  exception.    He  stated  that  based  on  his  observations  at  the  QMB 
meeting,  the  applicant  did  not  show  disdain  for the efforts of the QMB but rather he 
was attempting to get his view point across and move the QMB forward.  
 
 
The LT wrote that he was present at the all-hands meeting where the applicant 
was  awarded  a  letter  of  appreciation.    He  stated  that  when  the applicant's name was 
called he walked to the front of the room and stood next to the CO.  During the reading 
of  the  letter,  the  applicant  stood  tall,  was  quiet,  and  looked  at  the  ground.    Upon 
completion of the reading of the letter, the applicant shook hands with the CO, thanked 
him, and returned to his seat.  The LT stated that although the applicant was less than 
enthusiastic about being recognized, he did not exhibit poor military bearing.   
 
 
The  LT  stated  that  the  applicant  is  a  hard  working,  motivated,  outspoken 
individual.  He stated that the applicant was deeply offended at the manner in which he 
was relieved of his duties.   
 
 
This individual offered an unfavorable opinion of the XO, stating that he disliked 
unit personnel voicing an opinion that was different than his own.  He stated that the 
XO would hide the truth to look better.  As an example, he stated that the XO would 
change  the  date  on  routing  slips  going  to  the  CO  to  more  recent  dates  in  situations 
where he had held correspondence/documents far too long.  He stated "As a matter of 
habit  and  without  my  permission  or  approval,  [the  XO],  as  the  reporting  officer, 
modified the supervisor sections on OER's of my department personnel."   
  
 
5.    A  boatswain's  mate  second  class  (BM2)  wrote  that  personnel  in  the 
 
inspection's department had been there longer than the applicant and were not willing 
to accept any changes in the department.  The petty officer stated these officers resented 
being held accountable for their performance.   
 
 
6.   The applicant submitted five other statements from individuals for whom he 
had  previously  worked  or  with  whom  he  had  previously  worked.    These  statements 
were highly complimentary of the applicant's work ethnic and leadership skills.   
 
Applicants LT OERs 
 

 

On  December  17,  2002,  the  Board  received an advisory opinion from the Chief 

 
The applicant's imaged military record contains three other LT OERs, excluding 
the  disputed  OER.    On  these  reports,  the  applicant  received  no  performance  marks 
lower than a 4.  In fact, on the two previous OERs the applicant's performance marks 
were mostly 6s and 7s and he was rated as an excellent performer, a 5, in block 9, when 
compared with the other LTs that the reporting officers have known.   
 
Views of the Coast Guard 
 
 
Counsel of the Coast Guard recommending that relief be denied in this case.  
 
The Chief Counsel stated that to establish that an OER is erroneous or unjust, the 
 
applicant must show a misstatement of a significant hard fact or a clear violation of a 
statute  or  regulation.    Germano  v.  United  states,  26  Cl.  Ct.  1446  (1992).      The  Chief 
Counsel  stated  that  in  proving  his  case,  the  applicant  must  overcome  a  strong 
presumption  that  rating  officials  acted  correctly,  lawfully,  and  in  good  faith  in 
executing their duties.  Arens v. United States, 969 F. 2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992).  In 
this regard, he stated that the record established a difference of opinion with respect to 
the caliber of the applicant's performance, but the evidence was not sufficient to rebut 
the presumption of regularity.   
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  adopted  the  comments  of  the  Chief  of  the  Coast  Guard 
Personnel  Command  (CGPC),  which  were  attached  as  Enclosure  (1)  to  the  advisory 
opinion.    CGPC  stated  that  in  August  XXXX,  the  rating  chain  addressed  the  OER 
challenges  raised  by  the  applicant  in  his  OER  reply.    He  stated  that  the  applicant 
provided no evidence that the comments and marks assigned by the supervisor were an 
unfair and inaccurate depiction of the Applicant's performance during the period. He 
stated  that  although  the  applicant's  dislike  for  the  method  in  which  information  was 
obtained for his evaluation, the most important point is the rating chain considered the 
information a fair representation of the applicant's performance.    
 
 
GCPG stated that the documentation does not support the applicant's contention 
that  the  reporting  officer  and  reviewer  were  biased  against  him.    With  respect  to  the 
comments  about  the  meeting  in  which  the  applicant's  subordinates  requested  his 
removal as their supervisor, CGPC stated that the lack of any attempt by the CO to stop 
the alleged attacks on the applicant by the junior officers shows that the CO accepted 
the  junior  officer  statements  as  creditable  performance  input.    CGPC  characterized 
other evidence offered by the applicant about the XO as insufficient to show that he was 
biased against the applicant, although the statements painted a picture of an XO who 
was strong willed and difficult to please, and who often demonstrated behavior which 
was outside of that expected for a senior officer.  CGPC stated, however, that the XO 
treated all of his subordinates the same. 
 
 
CGPC stated that the evidence offered by the applicant to prove the inaccuracy 
of the statement "Poor military bearing before all hands when presented BZ ltr" differs 
only in degree with the reporting officer's description of the applicant's demeanor.  He 

stated  that  applicant's  statement  that  he  stood  reflectively  coupled  with  a  statement 
from  another  individual  that  the  applicant  was  less  than  enthusiastic,  could  be 
reasonably interpreted, as the XO did, as poor military bearing.   
 
With respect to the comments in the OER that the applicant made policy changes 
 
without the supervisor's knowledge, CGPC stated that the supervisor had denied that 
he was aware of any policy change until September XXXX.  "As a department head, [the 
applicant  previous  supervisor]  may  have  given  the  Applicant  what  appeared  to  be 
over-arching authority to handle situations, but the vague description of the content of 
their discussion does not countermand the supervisor's OER reply endorsement."   
 
CGPC  stated  that  the  comment  about  the  applicant's  showing  disdain  for  the 
 
QMB "was only refuted in degree."    He stated that the reporting officer interpreted the 
exchange that occurred between him and the applicant during this event "as disdain for 
the process" by the applicant.   
 
  
 

CGPC concluded by stating the following: 

[The LT's statement] provides evidence that the reporting officer was not 
prejudiced against Applicant, rather had strong opinions and applied his 
leadership  style  to  all  members  of  the  command.    "[The  LT]  states  [the 
reporting  officer]  disliked  unit  personnel  stating  their  opinion  to  him 
when  it  was  in  conflict  with  his  own.    [The  reporting  officer]  would 
become  visibly  irritated  during  such  discussions,  and even considered it 
insubordination when a subordinate would try more than once to explain 
their view point to him."  The same [LT] describes applicant as having "a 
strong  personality  and  is  not  afraid  to  speak  his  mind  even  if  it  may 
offend  another  individual."  These two descriptions paint a clear picture 
for the possibility of a personality conflict between these members of the 
rating chain bout does not support claims of prejudice.     

 
  Applicant Reply to the Views of the Coast Guard 
 
 
On January 3, 2003, the Board received the applicant's response to the views of 
the Coast Guard.  He disagreed with the arguments and recommendation of the Chief 
Counsel. 
 
 
The applicant stated that CGPC is correct when it stated that Article 10.A.1.b.1. of 
the  Personnel  Manual  required  COs  to  ensure  that  accurate,  fair  and  objective 
evaluations  are  provided  to  all  officers  under  their  command.    He  stated  that  his 
application  contains  evidence  that  questions  the  reporting  officer's  ability  to  evaluate 
him  in  a  fair  and  objective  manner.  He  stated  that  he  has provided evidence that the 
reporting  officer  frequently  disregarded  the  applicable  provisions  of  the  Personnel 
Manual  in  evaluating  subordinates,  as  shown  by  his  tendency  to  change  Supervisor's 
sections of an OER without their approval or permission.   
 

 
The  applicant  stated  that  the  Coast  Guard  conceded  that  the  reporting  officer 
was abusive and demeaning "toward all/many subordinates, officer and enlisted alike."  
He argued that since the Coast Guard was unable to refute the unprofessional conduct 
of the reporting officer, it has instead sought to establish that there was a factual basis 
for  the  disputed  marks  and  comments  by  addressing  specific  incidents  submitted  in 
support of his application.  The applicant restated his interpretation of the evidence and 
argued that it showed a clear pattern by the reporting officer of abusing and belittling 
his subordinates.    The applicant further stated: 
 

[He]  has  shown  that  the  Reporting  Officer  had  treated  him  in  such  an 
abusive and unprofessional manner as to raise at least the appearance of 
impropriety  regarding  his  ability  to  fairly  and  objectively  evaluate  [his] 
performance  during  the  period  in  question  .  .  .  The  [Coast  Guard's] 
response  that  the  Reporting  Officer's  abject  lack  of  professionalism  and 
abusive  treatment  of  the  [applicant]  cannot  be  shown  to  have  had  a 
negative impact on the rating process since he was equally abusive toward 
many or all of his subordinates is intellectually disingenuous. 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 

1.  The Board has jurisdiction of the case pursuant section 1552 of title 10, United 

 
 
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 
applicable law:  
 
 
States Code.  It is timely. 
 
 
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 applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to persuade the Board 
that  the  disputed  OER  is  an  inaccurate  assessment  of  his  performance  or  otherwise 
unjust.    The  applicant's  primary  contention  is  that  the  reporting  officer  was  biased 
against him due to a personality conflict that caused the reporting officer to be unable to 
objectively  evaluate  the  applicant's  performance.    He  also  alleged  that  the  reporting 
officer  and  CO  were  prejudiced  against  him  after  he  appealed  the  CO's  decision  to 
relieve him as the assistant head of the inspections department.   
 

4.    There  is  some  evidence  in  the  record  that  a  personality  conflict  existed 
between  the  applicant  and  the  reporting  officer.    Although  the  LCDR  wrote  that  the 
reporting  officer  had  a  serious  personality  conflict  with  the  applicant,  he  failed  to 
explain  the  basis  for  the  personality  conflict  or  provide  specific  details  on  how  he 
reached the conclusion that such a personality conflict existed between them.  The CWO 
stated that the reporting officer's dislike for the applicant could have resulted from the 
reporting officer's belief that the changes implemented by the applicant were a criticism 

of  the  reporting  officer  who  headed  the  inspections  department  before  becoming  the 
executive  officer.    Again  this  statement  is  based  on  speculation.    There  is  no  direct 
evidence that any personality conflict that may have existed between the applicant and 
the  reporting  officer  resulted  from  changes  the  applicant  implemented  in  the 
inspections department.   

 
5.  There are statements from the LT and CWO4 that the reporting officer treated 
the  applicant  abusively  at  a  QMB  meeting.      Each  stated  that  the  reporting  officer's 
behavior  was  so  "abhorrent"  that  it  resulted  in  the  District  Fourteen  Quality 
Performance  Consultant  counseling  the  reporting  officer  on  his  treatment  of  the 
applicant.  Again these statements are short on detail.  There is no detailed description 
of the reporting officer's behavior at the meeting or what he actually said.  Also, there is 
no  statement  from  the  District  Fourteen  Quality  Performance  Consultant  that 
counseling  was  indeed  provided  to  the  reporting  officer  about  his  treatment  of  the 
applicant.    Without  more  detail,  the  Board  cannot  say  that  the  reporting  officer's 
treatment of the applicant at this meeting was so abhorrent as to be indicative of a bias 
against the applicant. 

 
6.  Quite a bit of the evidence submitted by the applicant is devoted to a meeting 
held  by  the  CO  with  other  officers,  while  the  applicant  was  on  leave,  that  allegedly 
resulted  in  the  applicant  being  relieved  of  duty  as  the  assistant  department  head.  
However,  it  was  the  CO  and  not  the  reporting  officer  that  held  this  meeting  and 
relieved the applicant.  There is no evidence in the record that the reporting officer had 
anything  to  do  with  arranging  the  meeting  or  influencing  the  junior  officer's  to 
complain  against  the  applicant.    One  individual  stated  that  the  reporting  officer  did 
nothing to stop the tirade by the junior officer's against the applicant.  However, it was 
the CO's meeting and not that of the reporting officer.  It was the CO who stated that he 
had lost confidence in the applicant's leadership of the department.  The Board is not 
persuaded that the applicant's removal from his assistant department head duties was 
in  error  or  unjust.    The  Board  notes  that  the  applicant's  appeal  of  his  removal  was 
apparently  denied.    The  evidence  is  not  clear  how  the  reporting  officer  and  CO 
manifested their alleged prejudice against the applicant after he appealed his removal 
as assistant department head. 

 
7.    The  applicant's  argument  that  the  reporting  officer  allegedly  changed  OER 
marks  and  comments  without  the  permission  or  approval  of  the  rating  chain 
supervisors  does  not  establish  that  the  reporting  officer  was  hostile,  abusive,  or 
prejudiced  against  the  applicant.    Even  if  true,  it  has  very  little  relevance  to  the 
applicant's  case  since  he  has  not  alleged  that  the  reporting  officer  changed  the 
supervisor's  marks  or  comments  on  the  disputed  OER.      Neither  of  the  officers  who 
submitted statements indicated that they were aware of the reporting officer changing 
any of the supervisor's marks on the disputed OER.  

 
8.  Although the applicant has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the 
evidence that the reporting officer and CO were biased against him, the Board must still 
consider whether any of the challenged comments in the disputed OER are inaccurate.  

The applicant has not submitted sufficient evidence to prove that the comment "w/out 
consulting  supervisor,  dictated  unreasonable  policies  such  as  severely  limiting  who 
could  sign  qual[ification]  book"  is  inaccurate.    Neither  the  CWO4  nor  the  LCDR who 
addressed  this  issue  stated  that  the  issue  discussed  between  the  applicant  and  the 
supervisor  was  that  mentioned  in  the  disputed  OER.    The  CWO4  stated  that  the 
applicant discussed some department shortcomings with his supervisor but he did not 
state  what  those  shortcomings  were.    The  LCDR  stated  that  the  applicant  and 
supervisor shared an office and had ample opportunity to discuss inspection issues, but 
he  provided  no  evidence  that  they  discussed  the  issue  mentioned  in  the  above 
comment.   

 
9.  With respect to the comment that the applicant  "showed disdain for efforts of 
QMB when CO was not present," the applicant offered statements from the CWO4 and 
the LT that he did not show disdain for the efforts of the QMB, but was merely trying to 
get  a  point  across  to  the  reporting  officer.    The  Board  finds  the  statements  from  the 
CWO4 and the LT to be conclusory and lacking in the kind of detail that permits the 
Board to find the comment as written in the OER is inaccurate. 

 
10.    With  respect  to  the  comment  that  the  applicant  showed  "Poor  military 
bearing before all hands when presented BZ ltr," the LT stated that the applicant was 
less  than  enthusiastic  but  showed  not  disrespect.    According  to  the  LT,  the  applicant 
stood  tall,  was  quiet,  and  looked  at  the  ground.    The  CWO4  also  stated  that  the 
applicant  was  not  disrespectful  at  the  all  hands  meeting.    In  contrast,  the  reporting 
officer  stated  in  his  reply  to  the  OER  that  the  applicant  "stood  with  his  hands  in  his 
pocket, shifting uneasily, and at one time rolled his eyes."  Taking all of these statements 
into  consideration,  the  Board  finds  the  applicant  exhibited  some mannerisms that the 
reporting officer interpreted to be less than satisfactory military bearing.  The applicant 
has presented insufficient evidence to prove the statement in the OER about his military 
bearing to be inaccurate.   
  
 
11.  The Chief Counsel commented that the reporting officer was a difficult boss 
who sometimes demonstrated behavior outside of that expected of a senior officer, but 
he did not state as the applicant claims, that the reporting officer's behavior was abusive 
and  demeaning.    Nor  does  the  Board  find  that  the  applicant  has  proven  by  a 
preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  the  reporting  officer  treated  him  in  an  abusive 
manner.  The Personnel Manual does not require that a reporting officer have a certain 
management style.  However, Article 10-A-1(b)(2) of the Personnel Manual does state 
that  "there  is  only  one  person  responsible  for  managing  the  performance  of  an 
individual  officer  and  that  is  the  officer  himself  or  herself.    He  or  she  is  ultimately 
responsible for finding out what is expected on the job, for obtaining sufficient feedback 
or  counseling,  and  for  using  that  information  in  adjusting  as  necessary  to  meet  or 
exceed standards."  It was not unfair for the rating chain to expect the applicant to meet 
their expectations.  It was the applicant's duty to adjust his performance to meet their 
requirements, and if he failed to do so, it was appropriate to mention such failures in 
the disputed OER. 
 

 
12.    In  an  effort  to  show  the  disputed  OER  to  be  erroneous,  the  applicant 
compared the evaluation of his performance in the disputed OER with that in previous 
OERs.  While an applicant's past performance can be a factor in considering whether a 
particular OER is inaccurate, such past performance alone cannot be the sole basis for 
removing an OER.  In this case, the applicant has not shown by a preponderance of the 
evidence  an  error  or  injustice  in  the  disputed  OER.  Additionally,  an  OER  is  an 
evaluation of performance for a specific period of time and is based upon a particular 
rating chain's judgment and observations of a subordinate.  Each evaluation stands on it 
own merit, in the absence of error or injustice.   
 
 
13.  The rating chain supervisor did not serve as the applicant's supervisor for the 
entire rating period covered by the disputed OER.  However, the supervisor stated that 
he received direct input from the applicant's previous supervisor about the applicant's 
performance as assistant department head, as permitted under the Personnel Manual.   
The  applicant  also  claimed  that  the  reporting  officer  gave  the  rating  chain supervisor 
and  the  CO  erroneous  information  about  his  performance  leading  to  the  inaccurate 
disputed OER.   The applicant has not presented any evidence that the reporting officer 
gave  the  supervisor  or  CO  any  erroneous  information.      It  was  not  a  violation  of  the 
Personnel Manual for the supervisor to obtain input from other individuals who were 
familiar with the applicant's performance.  Article 10.A.4 c.4.d. of the Personnel Manual 
states that "the Supervisor shall draw on his/her own observations, from those of any 
secondary Supervisors, and from other information accumulated during the reporting 
period."    The  Board  finds  the  applicant's  allegations  discussed  herein  to  be  without 
merit.   
 
 
14.  Since the applicant has failed to prove error or injustice with respect to the 
disputed OER, the Board finds no basis on which to remove the applicant's failure of 
selection  for  promotion  to  LCDR.    The  disputed  OER  made  the  applicant's  record 
appear  worse  and  it  was  not  likely  that  he  would  be  promoted  with  the  OER  in  his 
record.    However,  the  disputed  OER  was  properly  considered  by  the  2002  LCDR 
selection board because it has not been shown to be in error or unjust.   
 
 
 
15.    Accordingly,  the  Board  finds  that  the  applicant  has  failed  to  prove  by  a 
preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  the  disputed  OER  is  inaccurate  or  unjust.  
Therefore, the applicant's request for relief should be denied.   
 
 
 

ORDER 

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his military record is 

 
 
denied.      
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 Julia Andrews 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 Stephen H. Barber 

 

 

 

 
 
 Christopher A. Cook