DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2004-161 
 
  
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
Author: Ulmer, D. 
 
 
This  proceeding  was  conducted  according  to  the  provisions  of  section  1552  of 
title  10  and  section  425  of  title  14  of  the  United  States  Code.    The  application  was 
docketed  on  July  30,  2004,  upon  receipt  of  the  applicant’s  completed  application  and 
military records. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated April 21, 2005, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 
 
 The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  military  record  by  removing  a 
special officer evaluation report (OER) for the period from April 10, 2002 to April 10, 
2002, from his record. 
 
The Special OER  
 
 
The OER covers a period when the applicant was a student under instruction at a 
university  working  on  an  advanced  degree.    The  special  OER  was  prepared  to 
document  the  applicant's  involvement  in  plagiarism.1    The  OER  marks  were  non-

                                                 
1      A  letter  from  the  Dean  of  Students  dated  April  25,  2002,  advised  the  applicant  that  the  Honor 
Committee hearing panel found the applicant responsible for the violation of plagiarism and imposed the 
following sanctions: 
"1.  A recommendation is being sent to [the instructor] that you be given a failing grade in the course. 

observed  except  for  the  reporting  officer's  portion  of  the  OER.  In  that  portion,  the 
applicant's  marks  (on  a  scale  of  1  to  7,  with  7  being  highest)  were  marks  of  2  in 
initiative, responsibility, and professional presence, and a 1 in judgment.  The reporting 
officer wrote: 
 

[The  applicant]  while  DUNIS  [duty  under  instruction]  at  [a]  University,  displayed 
extremely poor judgment by plagiarizing information in two separate reports submitted 
as part of the required coursework for INFO 790 Info SYS Policy & Admin.  The member 
was found guilty by the university of an Honor Code Violation, and received an "F" in 
the course.  The member's conduct is clearly not in alignment with our core values, and 
has brought discredit to the Coast Guard.  [The applicant] did not complete the necessary 
courses for the  . . . PG program and was, therefore, not awarded a degree.  
 
 
The reporting officer rated the applicant as unsatisfactory (the lowest of 7 places) 
on the comparison scale (Block 9 on the OER) where the reporting officer compares the 
reported-on officer with others of the same grade whom he has known throughout his 
career.     
 
 
applicant's potential for greater leadership and responsibilities: 
 

In  Block  10  the  reporting  officer  wrote  the  following  with  respect  to  the 

Until [the applicant] demonstrates a willingness to keep his chain of command informed 
and exhibits the Coast Guard Core Values, his potential for service in greater roles and 
responsibilities  remains  significantly  limited.    It  should  not  be  overlooked  that  [the 
applicant's] educational achievements are needed by the Coast Guard -- and if combined 
with  proper  and  professional  qualities  --will  serve  the  Coast  Guard  quite  well.    With  a 
recent selection to LT and this current period of performance, I cannot recommend him 
for promotion.    

 
 
 
following: 
 

The  applicant  submitted  an  addendum  to  the  special  OER.    He  wrote  the 

1.    While  DUINS  at    .  .  .  University  during  the  summer  of  2001,  I  was  accused  of  an 
Honors  Code  violation  of  plagiarism.    During  [a  certain  course]  we  were  required  to 
write two 3-page papers.  After turning in the first paper, and before I knew there was a 
concern regarding plagiarism, I turned in the second paper to the same professor.  Upon 
discussing the first paper with the professor and the professor telling me that this paper 
was borderline plagiarism, I got a better understanding of the requirements.  I informed 
the professor that the second paper was written similar to the first paper and requested 
to take a late penalty by retracting the second paper to rewrite it.  He told me that I could 

                                                                                                                                                             
"2.  You must attend a Writing Center Workshop on the question of how to avoid plagiarism.  If such a 
workshop is unavailable prior to June 1, you must contact me to arrange for an alternate experience that 
will instruct you on the same topic. 
"3.  You are cautioned that any future violation of the Honor Code would result in your separation from 
the University."      

not  retract  the  paper  based  on  his  rules.    After  he  reviewed  the  second  paper,  he 
determined  that  both  papers  were  plagiarized  and  submitted  them  before  [the]  Honor 
Committee.   
 
2.  I unintentionally committed plagiarism, not intending to bring discredit to the Coast 
Guard, [the] University, . . . or self.  As a result, I take full responsibility for my actions.  
In the spring of 2002, to redeem myself with the University, the Coast Guard, and self, I 
took the class again and received a B+. 
 
3.    As  for  receiving  a  MS  degree,  I  am  still  pursuing  the  completion  of  the  Degree 
requirements for a Masters of Science in Information System from [the] University.  I am 
committed  to  completing  the  degree  and  put  my  education  to  good  use  in  the  Coast 
Guard.  I feel that I have grown from this entire experience and if given a second chance, 
I  will  continually  strive  to  grow  the  organization  as  well  as  myself  professionally  and 
ethically.    I  request  the  opportunity  to  redeem  myself  and  to  continue  to  have  a 
successful career as an Officer in the United States Coast Guard.   

 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
The applicant alleged that the special OER portrays him as having engaged in a 
 
one-time  integrity  breech  plagiarism  while  assigned  to  DUNIS  at  a  university.  He 
argued  that the  incident  did  not  involve  an  intentional  integrity  breach,  but  rather,  it 
was an act of innocence and misunderstanding not warranting a special OER. 
 
 
As a result of the special OER, the applicant, who was on the list for promotion 
to lieutenant (LT), had his record placed before a special board to determine whether 
his  name  should  be  removed  from  the  LT's  promotion  list.    The  special  board  that 
convened  on  November  6,  2002,  recommended  that  the  applicant's  name  not  be 
removed.  The special board stated the following: 
 

It  was  the  unanimous  opinion  of  the  board  members  that  [the  applicant]  did  not 
intentionally  violate  the  honor  code  at  [the]  University.    This  was  based  mainly  on  his 
current  command's  endorsement.    His  office  chief  spoke  directly  with  the  Dean  of 
Academics who stated that the incident was more an educational issue vice an integrity 
issue.    The  school's  position  was  to  solve  the  incident  by  having  the  student  take  a 
technical  writing  course.    While  [the  applicant's]  performance  at  school  was  not 
exceptional  we  found  that  he  did  not  violate  the  Coast  Guard's  core  values  of  Honor, 
Respect, and Devotion to Duty.   

 
 
The applicant argued that the special board's refusal to recommend the removal 
of  his  name  from  the  LT's  promotion  list  is  inconsistent  with  the  Personnel  Records 
Review  Board's  (PRRB)  decision  not  to  remove  the  special  OER  from  his  record.    On 
August 25, 2003, the PRRB issued a decision refusing the applicant's request to have the 
special  OER  removed  from  his  record.    The  PRRB  stated  that  the  applicant  had  not 
"provided  evidence  that  overcomes  the  presumption  of  regularity  with  regard  to  the 
preparation,  submission,  and  validation  of  the  special  OER."    In  reaching  its  ultimate 
conclusion, the PRRB offered the following two opinions on the case: 

 

1.    Applicant's  Supervisor  and  Reporting  Officer  provided  appropriate  performance-
based documentation of a "behavior of substance" in  accordance with the provisions of 
[the Personnel Manual]. 
 
2.  The Special Board's decision not to remove Applicant from the LT promotion list is not 
inconsistent  with  his  rating  chain's  appropriate  documentation  of  the  incident  in  his 
OER.  Applicant is not entitled to have all documentation of the incident erased from his 
record  merely  because  the  Special  Board  did  not  find  his  conduct  egregious  enough  to 
remove him from the promotion list.   

 
The  applicant  argued  that  since  there  is  no  regulatory  guidance  provided  for 
 
"distinguishing between retention on a promotion list grounded in a Special OER and 
keeping that same Special OER in the service member's record, an examination of the 
facts  is  required."      He  submitted  a  copy  of  a  page  from  the  Honor  Code  of  the 
University, which defined plagiarism and cheating.  According to the page of the Honor 
Code submitted by the applicant, plagiarism encompasses the following:   
 

1.  Presenting as one's own the words, the work, or the opinions of someone else without 
proper acknowledgment.  
 
2.    Borrowing  the  sequence  of  ideas,  the  arrangement  of  material,  or  the  pattern  of 
thought of someone else without proper acknowledgement.  

 
The  page  from  the  Honor  Code  submitted  by  the  applicant  stated  that  cheating 
encompasses the following: 
 

1.  The willful giving or receiving of an unauthorized, unfair, dishonest, or unscrupulous 
advantage in academic work over other students. 
 
2.  The above may be accomplished by any means whatsoever, including but not limited 
to the following: fraud; duress; deception; theft; trick; talking; signals gestures; copying 
from another student; and the unauthorized use of study aids, memoranda, books, data, 
or other information. 
 
3.  Attempted cheating. 

 

the 

failure 

the  spectrum  of  possibilities 

The  applicant  argued  that  unlike  cheating  and  lying,  which  includes  willful 
deception,  plagiarism  contemplates  merely 
"proper 
acknowledgement"  of  source  information.    In  this  regard,  he  stated  that  plagiarism 
contemplates 
failure  of  proper 
acknowledgement  through  negligent  failure  to  intentional  failure.  He  argued  that  the 
language  in  the  OER  inaccurately  depicts  the  applicant  as  having  engaged  in  an 
intentional  act  of  wrongdoing--namely  plagiarism--  and  is  contrary  to  what  actually 
happened.    He  asserted  that  intentional  plagiarism  would  overlap  with  the  Honors 
Code  violation  of  cheating,  which  is  "[t]he  willful  giving  or  receiving  of  an 
unauthorized,  unfair,  dishonest,  or  unscrupulous  advantage  in  academic  work  over 

to  provide 

from 

innocent 

other students."  He argued that at no time was he found to have cheated or to have 
engaged in any intentional act of wrongdoing.   He noted that the letter from the Honor 
Board  advising  him  that  he  had  plagiarized  did  not  say  that  his  failure  was  an 
intentional  act.    He  stated  that  a  memorandum  from  his  then  office  chief,  Capt  S, 
summarizing  a  November  1,  2002,  conversation  between  Capt  S  and  the  Dean  of 
Students  at  the  University2  is  evidence  that  his  plagiarism  was  unintentional.  The 
applicant's  brief  provided  the  following  comments  with  quotations  from  Capt  S's 
reported conversation with the Dean: 
 

a.    The  professor  was  "an  unbending  son  of  a  gun"  who  seemed  to  have  a  chip  on  his 
shoulder  over  the  incident.    This  can  easily  translate  into  bias  to  include  anti-military, 
race, or academic snobbery. 
 
b.  The plagiarism involved Applicant "footnoting the sources, but failed to use quotation 
marks for direct quotes." 
 
c.  The matter was an "educational vice integrity issue." 
 
d.  One of the sources not quoted was the professor himself.  It was difficult for the Dean 
to imagine anyone who would intentionally quote his own professor without quotation 
marks. 
 
c.  The university did not regard this an egregious offense.     
  
 
 
The applicant argued that the evidence demonstrates that there was no negative 
"behavior  of  substance"  within  the  meaning  of  Article  10.A.3.c.1.d.  of  the  Personnel 
Manual.    He  stated  that  at  most,  he  simply  had  a  lack  of  understanding  as  to  the 
plagiarism  standard  of  the  University.    "Surely  footnoting  a  quote  without  quotation 
marks falls within the ambit of learning a experience.  The footnote was a map to the 
quotation.  No one bent on dishonesty would be so naïve as to provide such a map." 
 
 
The applicant stated that he reported the incident to the Coast Guard.  He further 
stated as a matter of honor he completed the course work on his own and earned his 
Master's Degree in Information Systems.  

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
 
On  November  18,  2004,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the Coast  Guard 
submitted  an  advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  deny  the  applicant’s 
request.   
 

                                                 
2      This  is  the  office  chief's  endorsement  that  the  special  board  relied  upon  in  recommending  that  the 
applicant not be removed from the LT's promotion list. 

 
The JAG stated that absent strong evidence to the contrary, government officials 
are  presumed  to  have  carried  out  their  duties  correctly,  lawfully,  and  in  good  faith.  
Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (1992).  He stated that the applicant has the 
burden  of  proving  error.    In  this  regard,  he  stated  that  the  applicant  plagiarized  two 
papers while attending graduate school, which was his primary duty assignment.  He 
asserted that the applicant's action brought discredit to the United States Coast Guard 
and  illustrated  the  applicant's  lack  of  adherence  to  the  Coast  Guard's  Core  Values  of 
Honor,  Respect,  and  Devotion  to  Duty.    The  JAG  stated  that  the  Coast  Guard  acted 
appropriately  and  in  accordance  with  established  policies  and  regulations  in 
completing  a  special  OER  to  document  applicant's  embarrassing  and  substandard 
performance  of  duty.    He  further  stated,  "far  from  committing  error  or  working  an 
injustice,  the  Coast  Guard's  response  was  far  more  tolerant  than  Applicant  had  any 
right to expect."   
 
 
The JAG attached to his advisory opinion a memorandum from the Commander, 
Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC), who also recommended that the applicant's 
request be denied.   He stated that the University's Honor Code makes no distinction 
between  intentional  and  unintentional  plagiarism;  and  no  such  distinction  is  made  in 
the comments of the special OER.  CGPC stated that the applicant was found guilty of 
plagiarism, and the rating chain for the special OER determined that he exercised poor 
judgment  and  that  his  conduct  was  not  in  accord  with  the  core  values  of  the  Coast 
Guard.   
 
CGPC  stated  that  the  statement  obtained  from  the  professor  who  accused  the 
 
applicant  of  plagiarism  rebuts  the  assertion  that  the  plagiarism  was  an  educational 
rather  than  an  integrity  issue.    The  professor  disagreed  with  the  applicant  that  the 
matter was trivial and stated that the applicant's actions reflected a clear and intentional 
disregard of the ethical standard pertaining to scholastic achievement and a complete 
lack of remorse for his deceitful actions aimed at earning credit for a work product that 
was not his own.  "Indeed, [the applicant's] was the most blatant Honor Code infraction 
that I have ever had to report for disciplinary action." He described what happened in 
the following manner: 
 

[The applicant] enrolled in [a course], and was assigned to write two research papers as 
part of the course requirements.  [The applicant] submitted his first paper on  time, but 
upon inspection, some of the phrasing and the general sophistication of the prose caused 
me to be skeptical that his was his own work product.  After examining the sources he 
had  listed,  I  was  convinced  that  the  paper  was  not  his  own.    However,  even  I  was 
surprised  when  further  investigation  revealed  that  he  had  copied  the  paper  from  an 
assigned  class  reading  written  by  the  professor  in  charge  of  the  course  .  .  .  Please  note 
that I mean this quite literally:  the paper from the first word to the last was copied from 
the reading with almost no changes.  He simply "borrowed" entire paragraphs of text and 
represented them as his own without any sort of attribution.  And, the fact that he failed 
to  list  the  reading  in  his  reference  list  reflects  a  clear  intent  to  conceal  his  actions.    (I 
should  also  note  that  I  spent  considerable  time  during  the  first  few  classes  explaining 

how  to  properly  format  papers  and  warning  students  about  the  serious  consequences 
associated with plagiarism.  In addition, the syllabus addressed each of these concerns.)     

 
 
CGPC  noted  that  the  Dean  who  allegedly  told  the  applicant's  then-office  chief 
that he viewed the entire matter as an education vice integrity issue is in fact the official 
who signed the letter informing the applicant that the Honor Committed found that he 
had  committed  plagiarism.    CGPC  stated  that  while  the  Dean's  opinion  on  the 
seriousness of the plagiarism violation is noteworthy, the facts outlined by the Honor 
Committee's findings and the declaration from the instructor indicate the violation was 
more than an educational issue.   
 
 
CGPC recognized that the special board recommended that the applicant's name 
not be removed from the LT promotion list.  CGPC stated that the special board reached 
its  recommendation  based  mainly  on  the  endorsement  of  the  applicant's  then-office 
chief that the applicant did not intentionally violate the Honor Code.  GGPC explained 
that  "[t]he  special  board  did  not  have  the  facts  provided  by  the  declaration[]  of  the 
instructor[], and the copy of the subject course work.  Whether these facts would have 
changed the decision, one can only speculate.  The fact of the matter, however, is the 
results of the special board have no bearing, and provides no evidence that overcomes 
the  presumption  of  regularity  with  respect  to  the  construction  or  submission  of  the 
Special OER." 
 
 
GGPC stated that the applicant's claim that the PRRB ignored the facts and relied 
instead upon the inflammatory words of the reporting officer in reaching its conclusion 
is unfounded.  He stated that the applicant provided no proof that the OER contained 
an error of fact or was incorrectly drafted, except for his allegation that the reporting 
officer's comments were inflammatory. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On  January  24,  2005,  the  Board  received  the  applicant's  reply  to  the  advisory 
 
opinion.  He stated the he stood upon his prior assertions that the alleged plagiarism 
was born of a misunderstanding and not a conscious decision to plagiarize.   
 
 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A) 
 
Article  10.A.  3.c.1  of  the  Personnel  Manual  provides  that  the  Commandant, 
 
Commanding  Officer,  higher  authority  within  the  chain  of  command,  and  Reporting 
Officers may direct a Special OER. 

 
 
Article  10.A.3.c.1.d.  states  that  a  special  OER  may  be  submitted  to  document 
"significant  historical  performance  or  behavior  of  substance  and  consequence"  which 
was unknown when the regular OER was prepared and submitted.   
 

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  submissions,  and 
applicable law: 
 

1. 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 

of title 10 of the United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 

2. 

The  applicant  requested  an  oral  hearing  before  the  Board.    The  Chair, 
acting pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.31, denied the request and recommended disposition 
of the case without a hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommendation. 

 
3.    The  Board  finds  that  the  special  OER  accurately  reports  the  fact  that  the 
applicant, while assigned to duty under instruction at a civilian university in a graduate 
program, committed plagiarism.  While the applicant attempted to cast his plagiarism 
as  an  unintentional  act,  the  facts  are  that  the  applicant's  then  instructor  believed  that 
two  of  the  applicant's  papers  contained  plagiarism  and  he  reported  the  applicant's 
alleged violations to the Honor Committee.  The Honor Committee determined that the 
applicant  had  engaged  in  plagiarism,  recommended  that  he  receive  an  "F"  for  the 
course,  ordered  him  attend  a  writing  workshop,  and  warned  him  that  any  further 
infraction would result in his separation from the university. 

 
4.  An April 25, 2002, letter from the Dean of students advised the applicant that 
the "Honor Committee hearing panel found [the applicant] responsible for the violation 
[plagiarism]."  There was no indication in that letter that the hearing panel made any 
distinction  between  intentional  and  unintentional  plagiarism.    Nor  does  the  Honor 
Code  page  provided  by  the  applicant  make  such  a  distinction.    Therefore,  the  Board 
finds  that  the  Honor  Committee  was  satisfied  that  the  applicant's  conduct  met  its 
definition of plagiarism.  The sanctions imposed on the applicant further convince the 
Board  that  the  plagiarism  was  a  serious  infraction  and  not  merely  an  innocent  act  as 
portrayed  by  the  applicant.    To  be  given  an  "F"  as  a  final  grade  in  the  course  and 
instructed to attend a writing workshop, constitute major punishment.  It is interesting 
to  note  that  the  applicant  doesn't  focus  on  the  portion  of  the  sanctions  that 
recommended he receive an "F' for the course, but only the portion that directs him to 
take a writing course.  

 

5.  The applicant's argument that his plagiarism was unintentional and resulted 
from a lack of education is not persuasive.  The Board considers the Dean's alleged oral 
statement that he considered the applicant's violation to be an educational rather than 
integrity issue to be his opinion and it will not be attributed to the Honor Committee. 
The Dean cannot speak for the Honor Committee because there is no indication in the 
record  that  he  served  on  that  committee.    Moreover,  there  is  no  indication  that  he 
attempted  to  intervene  on  behalf  of  the  applicant,  as  one  would  expect,  if  he  felt 
strongly  that  the  applicant's  violation  resulted  entirely  from  a  lack  of  knowledge  on 
how to properly credit work that was not his own.  In contrast to the Dean's statement, 
the  professor  who  accused  the  applicant  of  plagiarism  wrote  that  the  applicant's 
plagiarism "was the most blatant Honor Code infraction that I have ever had to report 
for  disciplinary  action."    The  professor  wrote  that  the  applicant  "borrowed"  entire 
paragraphs of text and represented them as his own without any sort of attribution. In 
addition, the professor stated that he spent time during the first few classes explaining 
how to properly format papers and warning students about the serious consequences 
associated with plagiarism. 

 
6. 

  The  applicant  argued  that  the  special  board's 

justification  for  not 
recommending his removal from the promotion list and his then-office chief's letter to 
the  special  board  that  the  plagiarism  was  due  to  a  lack  of  education  corroborate  his 
contention that the plagiarism was unintentional on his part and should not have been 
the  subject  of  a  special  OER.      The  special  board  and  the  then-office  chief  may  draw 
whatever opinions they wish from the facts as they view them.  However, the finding of 
the  Honor  Committee  and  the  accuracy  of  the  special  OER  are  the  important  issues 
here. The Board notes again that the Honor Code, provided by the applicant, makes no 
distinction  between  intentional  and  unintentional  acts  and  neither  did  the  Honor 
Committee when it found the applicant guilty of plagiarism.  

 
7.  The applicant argued that the special board's recommendation that his name 
not  be  removed  from  the  promotion  list  is  somehow  inconsistent  with  the  PRRB's 
decision that the special OER should remain in his record.  These Boards serve different 
functions and may reach different conclusions.  The special board was not convened to 
determine  the  validity  of  the  OER  but  rather  to  determine  in  light  of  the  applicant's 
entire  record,  particularly  the  special  OER  and  other  evidence  submitted  by  the 
applicant,  whether  the  applicant  should  be  promoted  to  LT.  Apparently  the  special 
board was persuaded by the then-office chief's statement summarizing his conversation 
with  the  Dean,  who  stated  that  he  considered  the  applicant's  plagiarism  more  of  an 
educational issue, and the then-office chief's positive observations of the applicant and 
his  performance  since  the  infraction.    The  Board  notes  that  the  special  board's 
determination might have been different if it had reviewed the professor's statement.  

 
8.      The  PRRB,  on  the  other  hand,  determined  whether  the  OER  covering  a 
specific  performance  period  was  prepared  in  accordance  with  the  Personnel  Manual.  

The  Board  finds  no  inconsistency  in  the  actions  of  the  special  board  and  the  PRRB. 
Apparently,  the  applicant  impressed  his  then-office  chief  enough  that  the  office  chief 
was  able  to  recommend  that  his  name  remain  on  the  promotion  list.    However,  the 
applicant's  excellent  subsequent  performance  and  his  then-office  chief's  positive 
observations  are  not  proof  that  the  reporting  officer's  comments  and  marks  in  the 
special  OER,  covering  a  period  when  the  then-office  chief  was  not  a  member  of  the 
rating chain, are an inaccurate assessment of the applicant's performance at the time.  

 
9.    The  Honor  Committee  determined  that  the  applicant  was  responsible  for 
plagiarism  and  the  reporting  officer  determined  that  a  special  OER  was  required  to 
document the applicant's "behavior of substance and consequence" in this regard. The 
reporting  officer's  comments  that  the  applicant's  plagiarism  showed  poor  judgment, 
brought discredit upon the Coast Guard, and was not in accord with the Coast Guard's 
core  values,  are  the  reporting  officer's  assessment  of  the  applicant's  performance  and 
must  be  respected  unless  something  in  the  OER  is  shown  to  be  inaccurate.    Different 
opinions of an event offered by others do not make the reporting officer's comments or 
marks inaccurate. The applicant plagiarized and was sanctioned to receive an "F" and to 
take a writing course. The special OER reports the applicant's act of plagiarism and the 
CO's evaluation of the applicant in light thereof.   
 

10.    The  applicant  has  not  shown  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  the 
special  OER  was  prepared  in  violation  of  the  Personnel  Manual.    Accordingly,  the 
applicant’s request for relief should be denied  

 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  ________________________  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

military record is hereby denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 
 Nancy L. Friedman  

 

 

 
 
 Adrian Sevier 

 

 

 
 Thomas H. Van Horn