DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                 BCMR Docket No. 2003-011 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

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 November 25, 2002, upon 
the BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s completed application. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

This  final  decision,  dated  May  29,  2003,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 
 
The applicant, a chief warrant officer (CWO2) in the Reserve, asked the Board to 
correct  his  military  record  by  removing  negative  comments  he received on an officer 
evaluation report (OER) for the period July 1, 2000, through June 12, 2001.   
 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S RECORD 

 
 
The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Reserve  on  December  8,  1988,  advanced  to  chief 
boatswain’s  mate,  and  was  appointed  a  warrant  officer  on  June  1,  1998.    He  was 
assigned to serve as the Reserve Officer Liaison for Station Xxxxxxxx.  On the first OER 
that he received in this position, covering his service from June 1, 1998, to June 30, 2000, 
the applicant received five marks of 4 and thirteen marks of 5 (on a scale of 1 to 7, with 
7 being best) in the various performance categories and a mark of 4 on the comparison 
scale.1  This first OER contained many laudatory comments, including high praise for 
his  efforts  to  increase  reserve  members’  qualifications  and  involvement  in  boatcrew 
                                                 
1 There are seven possible marks on the scale from 1 (unsatisfactory) to 7 (a distinguished officer).  The 
third, fourth, and fifth marks denote “one of the many competent professionals who form the majority of 
this grade.” 

 
(b)  “Failed to submit supporting documentation or input to OER.”3 

 

training, his managerial skills, his operational judgment, his communications, and his 
tenacity and commitment.  The OER also noted that he submitted his OER input “well 
ahead of due date.”  It was signed by the Deputy Group Commander as supervisor, the 
Group’s  Senior  Reserve  Officer  as  reporting  officer,  and  the  Group  Commander  as 
reviewer.2 
 
 
In June 2001, the applicant transferred to the IRR Active Status Pool.  Thereafter, 
he was informed that his command was supposed to prepare a “departure” OER.  At 
the  time,  his  published  rating  chain  was  his  station’s  commanding  officer  (CO)  as 
supervisor,  the  Group’s  Senior  Reserve  Officer  as  reporting  officer,  and  the  Group 
Commander as reviewer.  However, in October 2001, the disputed OER was entered in 
his record, signed by the Group Operations Officer as supervisor, the Deputy Group 
Commander  as  reporting  officer,  and  the  Group  Commander  as  reviewer.    The  dis-
puted OER has one mark of 3, for the performance category “Evaluations,” fourteen 
marks of 4, three marks of 5, and a mark of 4 on the comparison scale.  In addition, the 
disputed OER contains the following negative comments: 
 
(a)  “OER being provided for departure of member from Selective Reserve to Individual Ready Reserve 
when member did not desire to continue SELRES and shift work site from Station to Group to better 
support Group-wide operations and gain ops experience.” 

 

(c)  “Took initiative to assist in solving reserve issues at Station, but more is expected of a CWO (bosn) at 
a  CG  Small  Boat  Station.    Did  not  take  the  initiative  or  put  in  the  necessary  time  to  become  more 
involved in the day-to-day operations of the unit.  Only concerned with administrative duties associ-
ated  with  station  …  although  important,  the  unit  needed  an  operational  focused  CWO  assigned.  
When the Group attempted to better utilize skill set on the Group Staff, [he] refused to drill and chose 
to go into IRR instead.” 

 
(d)  “[The applicant] is enthusiastic when dealing face to face with CG reserves but his total commitment 
toward the Coast Guard has been in question.  Although [he] was an above average manager of per-
sonnel, his skill set did not meet the requirements of the Small Boat Station, i.e., qualified small boat 
cox’n, SAR planner, etc., and [he] did not show the necessary desire to obtain the necessary skill set.  
He has been reliable, but needs more experience before given more advanced staff and/or leadership 
responsibilities.  If brought back into SELRES, should not be assigned to Small Boat Station.  Future 
assignment should be to a larger staff, such as a Group.” 

 
                                                 
2  Articles  10.A.2.d.1.,  e.1.,  and  f.1.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  provide  that  each  OER  is  prepared  by  the 
reported-on officer’s “rating chain” of three senior officers:  the supervisor (usually the officer to whom 
the  reported-on  officer  answers  on  a  daily  basis),  the  reporting  officer  (usually  the  supervisor’s  super-
visor),  and  the  reviewer  (usually  the  reporting  officer’s  supervisor).    Under  Articles  10.A.2.b.2.b.  and 
10.A.2.g., the rating chain is established and published by the commanding officer, who can designate a 
new  rating  chain  in  writing  if  one  or  more  members  of  the  previous  rating  chain  is  unavailable  or 
disqualified. 
 
3 Article 10.A.2.c.2.e. of the Personnel Manual allows officers to submit to their rating chains information 
about their achievements during the evaluation period prior to the preparation of an OER. 

In November 2001, with the disputed OER in his record, the applicant was not 

selected for promotion to CWO3 by the promotion year (PY) 2002 selection board. 

 
In December 2001, the applicant received a copy of the disputed OER and sub-
mitted a reply.4  Regarding comment (a), the applicant stated that it is misleading.  He 
stated that, when told that his billet might be transferred to the Group office, he sup-
ported the transfer but discovered that he could not continue to fill that billet because 
he lives in xxxxxxxxxxxxxx and does not have a car.  What little public transportation 
was available was insufficient to allow him to drill at the Group office or reach berthing.  
Therefore, when told by the Deputy Group Commander that his choices were to trans-
fer with the billet to the Group office or go into the IRR, he chose the latter.5  He stated 
that comment (a) should more properly be stated as, member “chose to go into the IRR 
due to personal transportation and  berthing problems.” 

 
Regarding comment (b), the applicant stated that he had twice submitted bullet-
ed input for his OER.  He stated that he submitted it once by email and a second time as 
an attachment to an email after the Personnel Command informed him that no OER had 
been received from his command.   

 
Regarding comment (c), the applicant stated in his reply that, when he first took 
the job, he was told by the Personnel Command, by his CO, by his predecessor in the 
position, and by other senior reserve liaisons in the Group that the position was strictly 
administrative with no operational duties.  His CO had explained to him that he had 
relieved  all  senior  reserve  enlisted  members  of  operational  duties  after  “the Morning 
Dew incident.”  He alleged that before receiving the OER, no one had ever mentioned 
operational duties to him or suggested that he gain more operational skills.  He pointed 
out that his official duties, as listed in section 2 of the OER, are purely administrative.  
He asked how he could be deemed deficient for duties that he was never asked to per-
form and skills he was never asked to exercise. 

 
Regarding comment (d), the applicant stated that, when he was assigned to the 
station, there was only one qualified reserve boat crewman and no coxswains, and that 
by the time he left, there were thirteen reserve boat crewman and two coxswains.  He 

                                                 
4  Article  10.A.4.g.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  allows  the  Reported-on  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.”  The reply is forwarded up the rating chain so that each member has a chance to respond to the 
Reported-on Officer’s statements.  The reply and any responses by rating chain members are filed in the 
officer’s record with the OER. 
 
5  Under  Article  2.B.5.  of  the  Reserve  Policy  Manual,  reserve  members such as the applicant who reject 
assignment orders which would require travel beyond a reasonable commute distance are supposed to be 
assigned to another unit within a reasonable commute distance or transferred into the IRR.  A “reasonable 
commute distance” for a unit without berthing and dining facilities is defined as 50 miles or a 1.5 hour car 
ride.  The Group office is more than a 50-mile/1.5-hour ride from xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. 

also stated that participation in correspondence courses had doubled during his tenure.  
He stated that, at his prior station, he “had been an OOD [watchstander] and ops quali-
fied” and that he had never done so at Station Xxxxxxxx only because he had been told 
by the CO that his job was to be purely administrative.  

 
On January 10, 2002, the Group Operations Officer, who signed the OER as the 
supervisor, responded to the applicant’s reply by stating that “[a] member’s transpor-
tation issues to and from the drill site or berthing are not the responsibility of the Com-
mand”  and  that  the  applicant  “was  verbally  counseled  on  this  matter  after  it  was 
learned he was having duty personnel pick him up at the train station on his drill dates 
and  take  him  to  Station  Xxxxxxxx.”    He  further  stated  that  the  rating  chain  never 
received  any  supporting  input  from  the  applicant  for  the  OER  and  that,  when  asked 
about it, his CO denied having received any input. 

 
On January 11, 2002, the Deputy Group Commander, who signed the OER as the 
reporting officer, responded to the applicant’s reply by stating that he was supposed to 
assist  the  CO  with  training  and  development  of  the  reserve  members  to  support  the 
missions of the station, including search and rescue, maritime law enforcement, boating 
safety, and pollution response.  The Deputy Group Commander stated that the appli-
cant did not work toward qualifying on the station’s boats or as an OOD and resisted 
transferring  to  the  Group  office.    He  stated  that  the  applicant’s  administrative  duties 
were supposed to be his collateral duties, not his primary duties.  He also stated that the 
applicant’s transportation problems might be expected of a non-rate, but not of a CWO, 
and that if “this type of problem” is keeping him from drilling, “then his total commit-
ment should come into question.” 

 
On January 14, 2002, the Group Commander, who signed the OER as the review-
er, forwarded the reply and responses to the Personnel Command, stating that the OER 
“accurately  represents  the  supervisor’s  and  reporting  officer’s  opinions  and  observa-
tions of [the applicant’s] performance and potential in the organization.” 

 
In November 2002, the applicant was not selected for promotion by the PY 2003 
CWO selection board.  On January 30, 2003, he was notified that because of his second 
failure of selection for promotion, he would be discharged on June 30, 2003. 

 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
The  applicant  stated,  “I  have  never  met,  worked  with  or  have  I  been  directly 
observed by any of the officers who have signed the [disputed] OER.”  He stated that 
he  exchanged  a  total  of  four  emails  with  the  Group  Operations  Officer  after  he  had 
already transferred to the IRR, as well as one telephone conversation and two emails 
with the Deputy Group Commander.  He stated that the rating chain that signed the 
disputed OER was not the proper rating chain and had no basis for evaluating him.  As 

a result, he stated, several comments in the disputed OER are inaccurate and grossly 
misleading, and the OER is unjust. 

 
Regarding comment (a), the applicant stated that early on, he had looked into the 
possibility of moving his drill site from the station to the Group office in order to gain 
increased operational experience.  However, he was told that all but one reservist at the 
Group office had been removed from operational duties and assigned to “special pro-
jects,” which were largely “make work.”  Moreover, the applicant discovered that there 
was  not  adequate  public  transportation  to  the  Group  office,  and  he  was  living  in 
xxxxxxxxxxx and did not have a car.  He submitted train schedules showing that the 
only morning trains he could have used left the city at 12:35 a.m., arriving at the station 
closest to the Group location (but still ten miles away) at 2:27 a.m., and at 7:27 a.m., 
arriving at 9:13 a.m., one hour and thirteen minutes after the start of the work day at 
8:00 a.m.  In addition, the closest berthing was ten miles from the Group office and cost 
$229.00  per  night.    Therefore,  in  November  2000,  when  the  Group’s  Senior  Reserve 
Officer spoke to him about moving his billet to the Group office, he told him that he 
agreed that the billet should be moved but that, because of his transportation problems, 
he was not a suitable candidate.  In December 2000, he was told that he would not be 
required to move his drill site because of the transportation problems.  However, some-
time  thereafter,  the  Deputy  Group  Commander  told  him  that  his  only  two  options 
were to drill at the Group office or go into the IRR and try to get another position in the 
next assignment cycle.  In light of his transportation and berthing problems, he stated, 
he chose the latter option.  He alleged that comment (a) is an entirely unjust characteri-
zation of the problems that led to his transfer to the IRR.  He also noted that his billet 
had not actually been transferred to the Group office after he left. 

 
Regarding comment (b), “Failed to submit supporting documentation or input to 
OER,” the applicant alleged that in July 2001, he emailed the necessary bulleted infor-
mation about his duties and achievements to his commanding officer (CO) at the sta-
tion.    However,  the  email  and  the  OER  his  CO  prepared  were  apparently  lost.    He 
recompiled the information, saved it as a Word document on a floppy disk, and, with 
the help of a neighbor, re-sent the information as an attachment to an email to the CO in 
either  late  August  or  early  September.    However,  the  CO  was  unable  to  open  the 
attachment  and  never  mentioned  this  fact  to  the  applicant  even  though  they  were  in 
frequent communication.  The applicant alleged that in writing his OER, his command 
had “more than ample opportunity to ask about the ‘missing bullets’.” 

 
In  support  of  these  allegations,  the  applicant  submitted  a  letter  signed  by  his 
neighbor,  who  stated  that,  after  the  applicant’s  computer  crashed  in  July  2001,  he 
helped the applicant put the bulleted information on a floppy disk as a Word document 
and also showed him how to send the document as an attachment to an email to the 
CO.  In addition, the applicant submitted a copy of four pages of bulleted information 

 
The applicant also submitted a series of emails between him and his CO.  In the 
first,  dated  September  16,  2001,  the  applicant  stated  that  he  had  been  told  that  his 
“departure  OER”  was  still  missing  and  that  he  was  sending  the  necessary  bulleted 
information as an attachment, and that he had sent it once.  In response, the CO stated 
that he had completed the applicant’s OER “some time ago” and would try to trace it.  
He also stated that the “reserve unit personnel are performing flawlessly.”  On October 
5, 2001, the CO told the applicant that he had “re-done the OER” and forwarded it to 
the reporting officer.  On October 8, 2001, in an email to the Reserve Officer Evaluation 
System Manager, the applicant stated that “[i]n early September, I had sent my ‘bullets’ 
to my former command who apparently had to re-do the OER.  Perhaps it got lost in the 
shuffle of paperwork.”   

 
Regarding comment (c), the applicant stated that when he took the position in 
June 1998, it was described by the Personnel Command as “administrative liaison” and 
no mention was made of operational duties.  In addition, the outgoing liaison and two 
other  reserve  liaison  officers  in  the  Group  told  him  that  the  position  was  strictly 
administrative.  He stated that he was disappointed with the position description, and 
asked the CO about it.  The CO told him that he had relieved all reservists of any opera-
tional responsibilities “due to the fall out from the Morning Dew incident.”  The appli-
cant  stated  that  he  had  recently  checked  with  the  reserve  liaison  for the fourth small 
boat station in the Group, who confirmed that his duties were entirely administrative.  
Therefore,  the  applicant  alleged,  the  job  as  defined  and  as  practiced  at  all  four  small 
boat  stations  in  the  Group  was  entirely  administrative,  and  he  performed  his  duties 
with that understanding.  At no time did his CO or anyone else ever mention that he 
should  assume  operational  responsibilities.    The  applicant  pointed  out  that  his  prior 
position had had heavy operational requirements, and he would not have ignored them 
entirely if they had actually been part of his billet.  In addition, he pointed out that his 
first OER in this position made no mention of operational responsibilities and yet it was 
signed by the same lieutenant commander, as supervisor, who served as the reporting 
officer for the disputed OER. 

that he had sent his CO.  He stated that a comparison of the bullets to the disputed OER 
suggests that whoever prepared the OER did have his bullets. 

 
Regarding comment (d), the applicant stated that it was unfair for his reporting 
officer to state that he did not have the required skill set when his billet did not encom-
pass operational skills and when he was never asked to exercise those skills because his 
duties were understood to be entirely administrative.  He also argued that it was unfair 
for his reporting officer to question his commitment to the Coast Guard merely because 
he lived in xxxxxxxxxxxx and had to rely on public transportation to get to a drill site.  
He  stated  that  in  his  one  and  only  telephone  conversation  with  the  Deputy  Group 
Commander, when he explained his transportation problem, he was treated in a curt, 

dismissive, and insulting manner.  He stated that in light of his accomplishments at Sta-
tion Xxxxxxxx, his commitment to the Service should not be in question. 

 
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted the following statements: 
 
The  CWO  who  was  the  CO  of  Station  Xxxxxxxx  when  the  applicant  was  first 
assigned there stated that because of the heavy administrative load on the applicant, he 
never expected the applicant to qualify as a duty officer or OOD.  He stated that he had 
no complaints about the applicant’s service and that the applicant’s efforts resulted in a 
“marked increase in the number of reservists that achieved qualification.” 

 

 
A reserve senior chief petty officer (SCPO) at the station signed a statement on 
March  25,  2002,  stating  that,  because  there  was  no  reserve  command  structure,  the 
applicant’s  billet  was  “basically  administrative  in  nature”  and  that  the  applicant  had 
never been tasked with any operational duties.  The SCPO stated that he himself had 
stood duty as OOD until the “Morning Dew” incident, when all of the reservists were 
relieved of their operational duties.  Since then, his duties have been mostly administra-
tive.  Moreover, he stated, the CO’s policy against reservists standing watches is still in 
effect  at  Station  Xxxxxxxx.    The  SCPO  stated  that  several  statements  in  the  OER  are 
false,  misleading,  or  absurd  and  that the applicant’s commitment to the Coast Guard 
should not be in question just because he lives in xxxxxxxxxxx and does not have a car.  
The SCPO stated that the applicant was always on time for every drill and never left 
until the work was completed.  He also stated that to his knowledge, the officers who 
signed the disputed OER never observed the applicant’s performance. 

 
A chief boatswain’s mate (BMC) stated that the applicant “provided the neces-
sary leadership skills and administrative expertise” even though the reserve’s mission 
at the station was not quite clear.  He stated that if the applicant had ever been asked to 
acquire operational skills, he would have done so. 

 
A master chief boatswain’s mate (BMCM) who worked at the Group office stated 
the  applicant  had  once  inquired  about  transferring  his  billet  to  the  Group  so  that  he 
could increase his operational experience but that the BMCM had to tell him that all but 
one reservist at the Group office had been removed from the Operations Department 
and put on “special projects.”  Therefore, the BMCM stated, the applicant’s request was 
moot.  Moreover, he stated, public transportation to the Group office, berthing, and din-
ing facilities were “practically non-existent.”  He stated that the applicant’s billet and 
the  billets  of  the  Senior  Reserve  Liaisons  for  the  other  stations  in  the  Group  were 
administrative in nature. In addition, the BMCM stated that the applicant’s dedication 
and hard work had enabled him to advance quite quickly and that any suggestion that 
he is not dedicated “is absurd and spiteful.” 

Three  other  reservists  at  the  station  stated  that  the  applicant’s  job  was  purely 
administrative, that he did his job well, and that the station COs did not expect him to 
perform operational duties.  Two other officers who had worked with the applicant at a 
previous unit stated that he had shown extraordinary dedication in regularly commut-
ing over 120 miles each way by public transportation in order to drill. 

DECISION OF THE PERSONNEL RECORDS REVIEW BOARD 

 
On May 28, 2002, before submitting his application to the BCMR, the applicant 
exhausted his administrative remedies by asking the Coast Guard’s Personnel Records 
Review  Board  (PRRB)  to  correct  the  disputed  OER.    On  October  24,  2002,  the  PRRB 
found that the evidence “support[ed] the conclusion that the challenged OERs represent 
the honest professional judgment of those responsible for evaluating Applicant under 
the Coast Guard Officer Evaluation System.”  The PRRB concluded that the marks and 
comments in the disputed OER were consistent and recommended that the applicant’s 
request be denied.  The recommendation was approved the same day. 

 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On March 19, 2003, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard submitted an advisory 
opinion in which he recommended that the Board grant relief in this case, in accordance 
with  the  findings  and  recommendation  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command 
(CGPC). 
 
 
CGPC stated that the applicant’s proper rating chain included his CO as super-
visor,  the  Group’s  Senior  Reserve  Officer  as  reporting  officer,  and  the  Group  Com-
mander as reviewer.  However, the OER was signed by the Group Operations Officer as 
supervisor, the Deputy Group Commander as reporting officer, and the Group Com-
mander as reviewer.  CGPC stated that “[t]he Applicant’s direct supervisor, CO of Sta-
tion Xxxxxxxx, who was in a position to best judge the Applicant’s performance, did not 
sign as Supervisor on [the disputed] OER. … [The] senior reserve officer for Group … , 
who was in a position to best judge the Applicant’s performance in relation to reserve-
specific policy, did not sign as Reporting Officer … .”  CGPC stated that both of these 
officers were present and available when the OER was prepared, and neither had been 
disqualified for any reason.  
 
 
CGPC stated that because the comments in the disputed OER are not those of the 
applicant’s assigned rating chain, whether he was criticized for not performing duties 
that he was not assigned “cannot be established.”  CGPC stated that the disputed OER 
“is invalid because the published rating chain did not evaluate Applicant.  Therefore, 
the opinions and decisions of the PY02 and PY03 CWO In-Grade promotion boards are 
also invalid.” 
 

 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  March  24,  2003,  the  BCMR  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  Coast  Guard’s 
views and invited him to respond.  On April 3, 2003, the applicant responded, stating 
that he concurred with the findings and recommendation of the Coast Guard.  

 
CGPC  stated  that  the  members  of  the  applicant’s  proper  rating  chain  are  still 
available and recommended that the Board grant relief by removing the disputed OER 
and  failures  of  selection  from  the  applicant’s  record  and  requiring  the  correct  rating 
chain to submit a replacement OER by August 1, 2003. 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 

  
1. 

2. 

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

 
The  Board  makes  the  following  findings  and  conclusions  on  the  basis  of  the 
 
applicant's military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission, and appli-
cable law: 
 
 
§ 1552.  The application was timely. 
 
All Coast Guard records and actions by rating chain officials are accorded 
 
a presumption of regularity by the Board.6  However, the applicant has proved that the 
disputed  OER  was  prepared  by  an  invalid  rating  chain,  in  violation  of  Articles 
10.A.2.b.2.b. and 10.A.2.g. of the Personnel Manual.  The officers who signed the OER as 
the supervisor and reporting officer were not on the applicant’s published rating chain.  
The Coast Guard has admitted that the applicant’s CO and the Group’s Senior Reserve 
Officer,  who  were  supposed  to  prepare  the  OER  and  who  were  best  positioned  to 
observe and evaluate his performance, were available and qualified to serve on the rat-
ing chain when the OER was being prepared.  The Board finds that the applicant has 
overcome the presumption of regularity with respect to the disputed OER. 
 
 
The preponderance of the evidence in the record indicates that the prepa-
ration of the OER by the invalid rating chain was prejudicial to the applicant.7  Instead 
of being evaluated by his CO, who assigned him his duties and observed his perform-
ance, and by the Group’s Senior Reserve Officer, he was evaluated by officers who had 
had no opportunity to observe his performance (other than to learn that he could not 
commute to the Group office because he did not have a car) and who apparently were 
unaware that the CO of the station had limited him (and his predecessor) to adminis-
                                                 
6  33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b); Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 
594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979). 
7 Hary v. United States, 618 F.2d 704, 708 (Cl. Ct. 1980) (holding that an OER should be removed when the 
applicant  proves  that  it  was  adversely  affected  by  a  “misstatement  of  significant  hard  fact,”  factors 
“which had no business being in the rating process,” or a prejudicial violation of a statute or regulation.” 
 

3. 

4. 

trative duties.  The Board notes that the applicant’s prior OER in this billet was signifi-
cantly better than the disputed OER and that the CO was apparently quite happy with 
the results of the applicant’s work, since he reported to the applicant by email that the 
reservists were “performing flawlessly.” 
 
 
The Board finds that the applicant has proved by a preponderance of the 
evidence that the disputed OER was prepared in violation of regulation and is not reli-
able as a report of his actual performance during the evaluation period.  Although he 
originally asked the Board merely to remove the disputed comments from the OER, he 
has concurred in the Coast Guard’s suggestion that the members of his proper rating 
chain, who are still available, be required to prepare a new OER to replace the disputed 
OER by August 1, 2003.  The Board finds the relief recommended by the Coast Guard to 
be appropriate. 
 
 
The applicant asked the Board to remove from his record his failures of 
selection by the PY 2002 and 2003 CWO selection boards.  To determine whether the 
applicant’s failures of selection should be removed because the invalid OER was in his 
record when it was reviewed by those boards, the Board must answer two questions:  
“First, was [the applicant’s] record prejudiced by the errors in the sense that the record 
appears worse than it would in the absence of the errors?  Second, even if there was 
some such prejudice, is it unlikely that [he] would have been promoted in any event?”8  
 

Several of the comments in the disputed OER cast a very negative light on 
the applicant’s performance and commitment to the Service.  The Board finds that his 
record  was  clearly  prejudiced  by  those  comments.    In  light  of  the  fine  quality  of  the 
applicant’s first OER as a CWO, the Board cannot find that, without the disputed OER 
in his record, it is unlikely that he would have been promoted in any event.  Therefore, 
the Board finds that the applicant’s failures of selection to CWO3 should be removed 
from his record. 

5. 

Given the Board’s decision to remove the applicant’s failures of selection, 

he should no longer be slated for discharge on June 30, 2003.  

6. 

 
7. 

 
8. 

Accordingly, relief should be granted. 

 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

                                                 
8 Engels v. United States, 678 F.2d 173, 176 (Ct. Cl. 1982). 

ORDER 

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his military 

record is granted as follows: 

 

 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 His  OER,  OER  reply,  and  the  accompanying  endorsements  for  the  evaluation 

period from July 1, 2000, through June 12, 2001, shall be removed from his record.   

 
Within one month of the date of this final decision, the applicant shall provide 
CGPC with input concerning his achievements during the evaluation period, pursuant 
to Article 10.A.2.c.2.e. of the Personnel Manual.  Within three months of the date of this 
final decision, his published rating chain for the evaluation period July 1, 2000, through 
June 12, 2001, shall prepare and submit to CGPC a new OER reflective of his perform-
ance during the evaluation period.   

 
His failures of selection to CWO3 by the PY 2002 and 2003 CWO selection boards 

shall be removed from his record, and he shall not be discharged on June 30, 2003.  
 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 Julia Andrews 

 

 

 
 
 Christopher A. Cook 

 

 

 
 
 Patrick Judd Murray