DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
BCMR Docket No. 2004-179
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
FINAL DECISION
AUTHOR: Andrews, J.
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 August 25, 2004, 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 April 21, 2005, is signed by the three duly appointed
APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS
The applicant asked the Board to correct her record by raising two numerical
marks on her officer evaluation report (OER) for the period July 16, 2002, to July 17,
2003, when she was serving as the program manager for the Reserve Officer Evaluation
System. She also asked that the end date of the OER be corrected to May 31, 2003.
The applicant alleged that in March 2003, she received an email from the Coast
Guard Personnel Command stating that an OER was due for her for the period ending
May 31, 2003. Accordingly, on March 24, 2003, she submitted information for the OER
to LCDR K, who was her supervisor for the evaluation period. However, LCDR K went
on terminal leave on March 29, 2003, and retired on June 1, 2003, without completing
her OER. She alleged that LCDR K instead prepared recommended numerical marks
and comments and that he assigned her marks of 5 in the performance categories
“Results/Effectiveness” and “Teamwork.”1
1 Coast Guard officers are evaluated on a scale of 1 to 7 in a variety of performance categories, with 7
being the highest mark.
The applicant alleged that after LCDR K went on leave, she received an email
from CDR S stating that her temporary rating chain would include himself as supervi-
sor, CAPT F as reporting officer, and CAPT P as reviewer. She alleged that this change
violated the Personnel Manual since LCDR K was her supervisor throughout the
evaluation period and did not retire until June 1, 2003. She argued that being on termi-
nal leave did not render LCDR K “unavailable” under the Personnel Manual. On the
disputed OER, which was prepared by her new supervisor, CDR S, following the
detachment of her reporting officer, CAPT F, she received marks of 4 in the categories
“Results/Effectiveness” and “Teamwork.”
The applicant noted that she would be “in zone” for selection for promotion to
LCDR in September 2004. She asked that, if she fails of selection by that selection board
but is subsequently selected for promotion after the BCMR corrects her record, her date
of rank be backdated to what it would have been had she been selected for promotion
by the selection board in September 2004 and that she receive corresponding backpay
and allowances.
In support of her allegations, the applicant submitted a copy of the input LCDR
K provided for her OER before he left the office. It contains copious observations of her
performance and indicates that he would have assigned her marks of 5 in the categories
“Results/Effectiveness” and “Teamwork.” The applicant also submitted copies of sev-
eral email messages, including the following:
An email dated March 24, 2003, indicates that the applicant sent LCDR K
input for her OER upon his request.
An email dated April 15, 2003, notes that the applicant and twelve other lieu-
tenants at her unit “are currently scheduled to receive a regular OER for the
period ending May 31, 2003.” The email also advises reporting officers to
respond to the email if a regular OER would not be submitted.
In an email dated April 29, 2003, CDR S informed CAPT F that because of
LCDR K’s departure, a temporary rating chain should be established for the
applicant and one other lieutenant in the office; that LCDR K had provided input
for their OERs; and that LCDR K’s drafts were “in line with my observations.”
In another email message dated April 29, 2003, CDR S informed the applicant
that for the remainder of the reporting period, her rating chain would include
CDR S as supervisor, CAPT F as reporting officer, and CAPT P as reviewer.
On May 12, 2003, CDR S reminded the applicant by email that her OER input
was due as soon as she returned to the office. The subject line of this email mes-
sage is “Your OER ending May 31.”
On May 23, 2003, CDR S informed the applicant by email that she would be
writing the OER that weekend and needed the applicant’s input. CDR S told her
that the input should include “bullets of accomplishments you would like me to
consider for your OER, examples of work completed.”
On May 23, 2003, the applicant forwarded CDR S the same email message
with OER input that she had sent to LCDR K on March 24, 2003.
SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S RECORD
On April 9, 1991, the applicant received a direct commission as a lieutenant
because of her law degree. On June 30, 1998, she was discharged as a result of having
twice failed of selection for promotion to lieutenant commander.
On January 4, 1999, the applicant accepted an appointment as a lieutenant (junior
grade) in the Reserve and began drilling on inactive duty. On November 1, 1999, she
signed an extended active duty contract and began serving as an xxxxxxxxxx consultant
to the xxxxxxxxxx. On November 18, 1999, she was promoted to lieutenant. On her
first OER in this position, which covered her performance through May 31, 2000, she
received seven marks of 4, ten marks of 5, and one mark of 6 in the performance
categories and a mark of 4 on the Comparison Scale.2 In the second OER, which
covered her performance through May 31, 2001, she received two marks of 4, eight
marks of 5, and eight marks of 6 in the performance categories and a mark of 5 on the
Comparison Scale. In the third OER she received at the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, after
having been promoted to serve as the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx program manager from June
1, 2001, to July 15, 2002, she was assigned five marks of 4, ten marks of 5, and three
marks of 6 in the performance categories and a mark of 5 on the Comparison Scale. The
applicant also received her first two Achievement Medals while at the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxx.
On July 16, 2002, the applicant began serving as the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Program Manager. She was responsible for xxxxxxxxxxxxxx and providing guidance
regarding xxxx timing and policies. According to the Coast Guard, a unit instruction
dated March 3, 2003, shows that her promulgated rating chain included LCDR K as her
supervisor, CDR S as the reporting officer, and CAPT F as the reviewer. However,
because LCDR K began administrative and terminal leave on March 29, 2003, and
retired on June 1, 2003, the rating chain was revised on April 29, 2003, to include CDR S
as supervisor, CAPT F as reporting officer, and CAPT P as reviewer.
2 The Comparison Scale is not actually numbered. However, as with the performance categories, there
are seven possible marks. Officers are supposed to be marked in comparison with all other officers of the
same rank known to the reporting officer. A Comparison Scale mark in fourth place describes the officer
as an ”exceptional performer; very competent, highly respected professional.” A mark in the fifth place
means the officer was rated to be a “distinguished performer; give tough challenging, visible leadership
assignments.”
The OER disputed in this case covers the applicant’s performance as the Reserve
Officer Evaluation System Program Manager through July 17, 2003. It indicates that it
was prepared upon the detachment of her reporting officer. The numerical marks
include three marks of 4 in the performance categories “Results/Effectiveness,” “Team-
work,” and “Health and Well-Being,” as well as thirteen marks of 5, two marks of 6,
and a mark of 5 on the Comparison Scale. Her reporting officer, CAPT F, strongly rec-
ommended her for promotion with her peers.
On the applicant’s second OER as the Reserve Officer Evaluation System Pro-
gram Manager—which covers her service from July 18, 2003, through May 31, 2004 —
she received one mark of 4 (for “Writing”), eleven marks of 5, six marks of 6, and a
mark of 5 on the Comparison Scale. Due to transfers, her rating chain for this OER
included none of the members of her rating chain for the disputed OER.
VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On January 12, 2005, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard sub-
mitted an advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny relief in this
case because the applicant has “failed to carry her burden of production and persuasion
and did not show that her OER was improperly prepared or was not a fair and accurate
evaluation of her performance.”
The JAG argued that the Board should apply the following standards in deciding
whether to grant relief:
To establish that an OER is erroneous or unjust, an applicant must prove that the chal-
lenged OER was adversely affected by a “clear and prejudicial violation of a statute or
regulation or, alternatively, a misstatement of a significant hard fact.” Germano v. United
States, 26 Cl. Ct. 1446, 1460 (1992); see also Hary v. United States, 618 f.2d 704 (Cl. Ct. 1980).
In proving his case, an applicant must overcome a strong presumption that his rating
officials acted correctly, lawfully, and in good faith in making their evaluations under the
Coast Guard’s Officer Evaluation System.” Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037
(1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979).
The JAG adopted as part of his advisory opinion a memorandum on the case
from the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC). CGPC stated that on April 29,
2003, it authorized CDR S to adjust the applicant’s rating chain because of LCDR K’s
departure from the office. CGPC stated that the adjustment to the applicant’s rating
chain was proper under Article 10.A.2.g. of the Personnel Manual because LCDR K was
“unavailable” due to his prolonged absence. CGPC noted that LCDR K properly left
input for the OER with CDR S and that the applicant was notified in writing of the
adjustment to her rating chain. CGPC stated that although LCDR K left input for the
OER, CDR S was not required to use or include his input in the OER, as the departing
supervisor’s marks and comments are strictly recommendations. CGPC argued that
CDR S was under no obligation to assign the exact marks recommended by LCDR K.
Regarding the date of the end of the reporting period, CGPC stated that although
under Article 10.A.3. of the Personnel Manual, May 31st usually ends the annual
evaluation period for lieutenants, under Article 10.A.3.a.1.b.2., submission of the annual
OER is optional if a regular OER will be submitted within 182 days of the scheduled
date for the annual report. CGPC stated that a “Detachment/Change of Reporting Offi-
cer” OER is a regular OER and that one was prepared for the applicant upon the depar-
ture of her reporting officer within 182 days of May 31st.
Regarding the applicant’s complaint that the alteration of the end date caused
the OER not to reflect her performance in June and July 2003, CGPC argued that the
emails she submitted indicate that CDR S requested her input for the OER more than
once and that the applicant “had the opportunity and … the responsibility to provide
her supervisor [CDR S] with a complete listing of significant achievements or aspects of
performance that occurred during the entire period.” CGPC concluded that the
applicant has failed to prove that her rating chain was erroneous or that they failed to
fulfill their responsibilities in accordance with the Personnel Manual.
APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On January 12, 2005, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the Coast Guard’s
views and invited her to respond within 30 days. On February 11, 2005, the BCMR
received the applicant’s response.
The applicant argued that LCDR K was available to complete her OER during his
terminal leave. She noted that during his terminal leave, he responded to various que-
ries from the office. She alleged that it is standard practice at CGPC to contact officers
who are on terminal leave, who have just retired, or who have transferred to another
billet to get their signatures on OERs. The applicant also argued that LCDR K should
have completed the OER because he was her immediate supervisor for nine months of
the evaluation period, whereas CDR S was her supervisor for only the last four months.
Moreover, she alleged, during those four months, LCDR X, who assumed LCDR K’s
billet on July 1, 2003, acted as her supervisor on several occasions instead of CDR S.
The applicant further argued that if the alteration of her rating chain was legiti-
mate due to LCDR K’s alleged unavailability, then the end date of her evaluation period
should have been April 29, 2003, when her reporting officer changed from CDR S to
CAPT F.
The applicant alleged that she had no idea that her rating chain had changed the
end date of her evaluation period until she received the completed OER after it was
validated by CGPC on November 25, 2003. She alleged that if she had known they had
extended the evaluation period, she would have provided additional documentation of
her performance during the final months. She alleged that on May 23, 2003, CDR S
asked her for the OER input she had provided to LCDR K on March 24, 2003. She noted
that the subject line for this email was “Your OER ending May 31.” The applicant
stated that she gave CDR S a paper copy of the input she had given LCDR K on June 6,
2003, and that that was the last time CDR S asked her for OER input.
Accordingly, the applicant asked the Board to remove the disputed OER from
her record. She asked that a new Detachment/Change of Reporting Officer OER be
prepared for the period July 16, 2002, to April 28, 2003, with the proper rating chain that
was promulgated during that period, including LCDR K as supervisor, CDR S as
reporting officer, and CAPT F as reviewer. In the alternative, she asked that the marks
of 4 she received for “Results/Effectiveness” and “Teamwork” be raised to 5s.
Finally, the applicant alleged that the disputed OER was a significant factor in
her failure to be selected for promotion to LCDR in September 2004. Therefore, she
argued, after her record is corrected, her date of rank should be backdated and she
should receive backpay and allowances if she is selected for promotion by the next
LCDR selection board.
RELEVANT REGULATIONS
Article 10.A.1.c.4. of the Personnel Manual provides that a rating chain includes
the reported-on officer; his supervisor, who is “[n]ormally, the individual to whom the
Reported-on Officer answers on a daily or frequent basis and from whom the Reported-
on Officer receives the majority of direction and requirements”; the reporting officer,
who is “[n]ormally the Supervisor’s supervisor”; and the reviewer, who is “[n]ormally
the Reporting Officer’s supervisor.”
Article 10.A.2.g.1. provides that “[i]n instances where a Supervisor, Reporting
Officer, or Reviewer is unavailable or disqualified to carry out their rating chain respon-
sibilities, the commanding officer or the next senior officer in the chain of command
shall designate an appropriate substitute who is capable of evaluating the Reported-on
Officer. Other members in the rating chain may be adjusted and designated, as appro-
priate.” Article 10.A.2.g.2. states that “[a]s used within this subparagraph: a. ‘Unavail-
able’ includes illness, injury, death, prolonged absence, transfer, separation from the
Service, retirement, or any other situation which prevents or substantially hinders the
Supervisor, Reporting Officer, or Reviewer from properly carrying out their rating
chain responsibilities.”
Article 10.A.3.a. provides the submission schedule for regular OERs. The end
date of a lieutenant’s annual OER is May 31. However, Article 10.A.3.a.2.b. provides
that with a detachment or change of the reporting officer, “OERs for officers on an
annual submission schedule are required if more than six months (i.e., 182 days) have
elapsed since the ending date of the last regular OER or the date reported present unit,
whichever is later.” Article 10.A.3.a.1.b. provides that an “[a]nnual or semiannual OER
submission is optional (waivers not required) if:
“(1) A regular OER (or a special OER that counts for continuity) was submitted
within 182 days prior to the scheduled submission date for annual reports or 92 days
for semiannual reports.
“(2) A regular OER will be submitted within the 182 days following the sched-
uled due date for annual reports or 92 days for semiannual reports.”
Article 10.A.2.c.2. provides that it is the responsibility of the reported-on officer
to prepare the first section of an OER an submit it “to the Supervisor not later than 21
days before the end of the reporting period.” In addition, the reported-on officer
“[m]ay submit to the Supervisor not later than 21 days before the end of the reporting
period a listing of significant achievements or aspects of performance which occurred
during the period.”
Article 10.A.2.d.a.i. provides that the supervisor completes his or her parts of the
OER with numerical marks and supporting comments and “[f]orwards the OER … and
any other relevant performance information to the Reporting Officer not later than 10
days after the end of the reporting period.” In addition, a supervisor who is leaving the
unit “[p]rovides the new Supervisor with a draft of OER sections (3-6) when the Super-
visor changes during a reporting period.”
Article 10.A.2.e.2.e. provides that the reporting officer completes his or her parts
of the OER with numerical marks and supporting comments and “[e]nsures the OER is
forwarded to the Reviewer not later than 30 days after the end of the reporting period.
Article 10.A.2.f.2.e. provides that the reviewer reviews the OER for accuracy and consis-
tency and “[e]xpedites the reviewed report in a reasonable time to permit the OER
Administrator to ensure the OER is received by Commander, (CGPC-opm-3) or Com-
mander, (CGPC-rpm) 45 days after the end of the reporting period.”
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
2.
3.
1.
The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C.
The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the
applicant's military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission, and appli-
cable law:
§ 1552. The application was timely.
The Coast Guard admits that on April 29, 2003, the applicant’s rating
chain was altered and that her reporting officer changed from CDR S to CAPT F. The
applicant alleged that the alteration of her rating chain was improper because LCDR K
was available to serve as supervisor. The record indicates that LCDR K went on
terminal and administrative leave on March 29, 2003, in anticipation of his retirement
on June 1, 2003. Email correspondence in the record indicates that at the time, the
command intended to prepare an annual OER for the applicant with an end date of
May 31, 2003. The Board finds that it was reasonable for the applicant’s command to
conclude that two months of administrative and terminal leave constituted a “pro-
longed absence” and rendered LCDR K “unavailable” under the provisions of Article
10.A.2.g. of the Personnel Manual.
The Coast Guard was entitled to alter the applicant’s rating chain under
the provisions of Article 10.A.2.g. of the Personnel Manual when LCDR K went on
extended leave. However, nothing in Article 10.A.2.g. negates the requirement in Arti-
cle 10.A.3.a.2.b. to prepare a Detachment/Change of Reporting Officer OER whenever a
member’s reporting officer changes. There may be circumstances, such as when a
detaching reporting officer is disqualified by bias, that would make the preparation of a
Detachment/Change of Reporting Officer OER under Article 10.A.3.a.2.b. improper
and unjust. However, such was not the case for the applicant in March 2003, when her
command knew that LCDR K would be going on extended leave and knew or should
have known that it would alter her rating chain and reporting officer as a result of his
unavailability.
4.
6.
5.
In accordance with Article 10.A.3.a.2.b. of the Personnel Manual, a Detach-
ment/Change of Reporting Officer OER should have been prepared when the appli-
cant’s reporting officer was changed from CDR S to CAPT F because more than 182
days had passed since the end date of the applicant’s last evaluation period, which was
July 15, 2002. The Coast Guard’s failure to prepare an OER for the applicant when her
rating chain was altered is a clear violation of the plain language of Article 10.A.3.a.2.b.
However, as the JAG argued, “[t]o establish that an OER is erroneous or unjust, an
applicant must prove that the challenged OER was adversely affected by a ‘clear and
prejudicial violation of a statute or regulation or, alternatively, a misstatement of a sig-
nificant hard fact.’” Germano v. United States, 26 Cl. Ct. 1446, 1460 (1992) (emphasis
added). Therefore, the Board must determine whether the command’s failure to pre-
pare an OER for the applicant upon changing her reporting officer was prejudicial to
her performance record.
Whether the failure to prepare an OER for the applicant when her report-
ing officer changed from CDR S to CAPT F was prejudicial to her performance record
depends on which rating chain should have prepared that OER. The applicant has sub-
mitted purported OER input from LCDR K indicating that as supervisor he would have
assigned her marks of 5, instead of 4, in the performance categories “Results/Effective-
ness” and “Teamwork.” Although LCDR K’s document is not signed, the Coast Guard
has not disputed its authenticity and has acknowledged that it constituted LCDR K’s
recommendation to CDR S regarding the applicant’s OER. Therefore, if the applicant’s
original rating chain, as published on March 3, 2003, should have prepared the OER
upon the change of reporting officer, the command’s failure to prepare the OER must be
deemed prejudicial in that it resulted in the applicant’s receiving two marks of 4 from
CDR S in those performance categories, instead of the marks of 5 LCDR K would have
assigned.
As stated in Finding 2, it was not unreasonable for the applicant’s com-
mand to determine that LCDR K was unavailable after March 29, 2003. However, the
Board also notes that the command waited a full month after LCDR K left and pre-
sumably even longer after the command knew that LCDR K would be leaving on ter-
minal and administrative leave to decide that he was “unavailable” under Article
10.A.2.g. of the Personnel Manual and to change the applicant’s rating chain. If the
command had timely determined prior to LCDR K’s departure on extended leave that
he would thereafter be “unavailable” to complete the applicant’s OER and that her
reporting officer would change upon his departure, the original rating chain promul-
gated on March 3, 2003, which included LCDR K as supervisor, would properly have
been called upon to prepare the OER required pursuant to Article 10.A.3.a.2.b. of the
Personnel Manual because of the change of reporting officer. LCDR K only became
“unavailable” to prepare an OER for the applicant because her command waited until a
month after he left the office (and presumably much longer after the command knew he
7.
would be taking extended leave) to determine that the applicant’s reporting officer
would change because of LCDR K’s departure.
The Board concludes that, but for the command’s delay in determining
that LCDR K would be “unavailable” during his leave and in deciding to alter the appli-
cant’s rating chain and reporting officer, she would have received a Detachment/
Change of Reporting Officer OER prepared by her original rating chain, including
LCDR K, prior to his departure. Although the applicant apparently has significant
expertise in xxxxx policy, she could not have known prior to LCDR K’s departure on
leave in March that her command would decide that he was “unavailable” in April
since, as she alleged, officers on terminal leave sometimes prepare OERs. Of course, the
Personnel Manual does not specify when exactly a command must decide that a mem-
ber of the rating chain is “unavailable” and that a new rating chain is necessary. How-
ever, in this case, the command’s tardy determinations have deprived the applicant of
the marks that her long-time supervisor would have assigned her. Therefore, the Board
finds that the command’s violation of Article 10.A.3.a.2.b. of the Personnel Manual and
delay in altering her rating chain were prejudicial to her performance record in that
they resulted in her receiving marks of 4 in the performance categories “Results/Effec-
tiveness” and “Teamwork,” instead of the marks of 5 LCDR K would have assigned.
The applicant has therefore proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the marks
are erroneous and should be raised.
In light of the above, the Board need not address other issues raised by the
applicant, such as the lack of notice of the change in the expected end date of the OER
from May 31, 2003, to July 17, 2003.
If the applicant had received the required OER when her reporting officer
was changed from CDR S to CAPT F, under Article 10.A.3.a.(1) of the Personnel Man-
ual, no annual OER would have been required for the period ending May 31, 2003,
because that date fell within 182 days of LCDR K’s departure (when the change of
reporting officer should have occurred). For the same reason and pursuant to Article
10.A.3.a.2.b., no second Detachment/Change of Reporting Officer OER would have
been required when her reporting officer changed again on July 17, 2003.
In her response to the JAG’s advisory opinion, the applicant asked that the
entire disputed OER be removed from her record. However, the only part of the OER
that she has alleged or proved to be erroneous is the two marks of 4 in the performance
categories “Results/Effectiveness” and “Teamwork.” Although she complained that
the OER did not cover her performance during the last months of the evaluation period,
she presented no evidence whatsoever of significant performance-related information
that is missing from the comments in the OER. In BCMR Docket No. 151-87, it was held
that “an OER will not be ordered expunged [in its entirety] unless the Board finds that
the entire report is infected with the errors or injustices alleged; unless the Board finds
that every significant comment in the report is incorrect or unjust; or unless the Board
10.
8.
9.
11.
finds it impossible or impractical to sever the incorrect/unjust material from the appro-
priate material.” In the instant case, the Board finds that correcting the two marks of 4
to 5s is a simple and easy alteration. There is no basis in the record for expunging the
entire OER.
The applicant alleged that the errors in her record caused her to fail of
selection for promotion in September 2004 and asked the Board to expunge that failure.
Under Engels v. United States, 678 F.2d 173, 176 (Ct. Cl. 1982), to determine if the appli-
cant is entitled to such relief, the Board must answer the following 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 [she] would have been [selected for promotion in
September 2004] in any event?” With respect to the first question, the Board finds that
having marks of 4 in two performance categories, rather than marks of 5, did at least
slightly prejudice her record. With respect to the second question, however, the Board
finds that it is unlikely that the applicant would have been selected for promotion even
if the two marks in the disputed OER had been 5s instead of 4s. The Board notes that
the applicant has earned other marks of 4 in her recent career and that the two disputed
marks of 4 do not stand out in her record. Moreover, during the previous evaluation
period, when the applicant was made the equal opportunity program manager after
serving as an equal opportunity consultant for a year and one-half, her marks declined
from mostly 5s and 6s to mostly 4s and 5s. In addition, the applicant received a mark of
5 on the Comparison Scale and a strong recommendation for promotion in the disputed
OER, which greatly overshadow any slight prejudice that could have resulted from the
two marks of 4. The Board finds that it is very unlikely that the outcome of the selection
board would have been different had two out of eighteen performance category marks
on one of the many OERs in her record been one place higher. Therefore, the Board will
not order the applicant’s failure of selection to be expunged.
12. Accordingly, the applicant’s record should be corrected by raising her
marks in the disputed OER from 4s to 5s in the performance categories “Results/Effec-
tiveness” and “Teamwork.” Although the end date of the disputed OER should have
been March 28, 2003, and the supervisor’s signature should have been that of LCDR K,
the Board sees no reason to correct these errors as the applicant has not proved that the
date and signature are per se prejudicial to her record.
[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]
ORDER
The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of her
military record is granted in part as follows:
The numerical marks in the performance categories “Results/Effectiveness” and
“Teamwork” on her officer evaluation report (OER) for the period July 16, 2002, to July
17, 2003, shall be raised from 4s to 5s.
No other relief is granted.
Nancy L. Friedman
Adrian Sevier
Thomas H. Van Horn
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2004-159
He alleged that he was told in private that the new rating chain was intended to make the applicant “better respond to tasking and end his complaints that he was getting mixed messages from [LCDR B] and me.” How- ever, he alleged, the applicant’s performance did not improve, and the disputed OER “was an accurate and fair reflection of his actual performance.” CDR C alleged that none of the marks or comments in the disputed OER were assigned because of any ethics complaint regarding “alleged...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2006-036
The applicant alleged that the prior Chief of Staff, her properly designated RO, left the command on December 1, 2000, without pre- paring an OER, which she alleged was required by regulation.1 She argued that if he had done so, the disputed OER would probably not have been prepared.2 The applicant further alleged that she was unaware during the evaluation period that CAPT X would serve as her RO. of the Personnel Manual, which states that “[i]f the Reporting Officer changes and a complete...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2007-027
CGPC stated that the applicant did not submit his OER input to his rating chain within 21 days of the end of the evaluation period as required by Article 10.A.2.c.2.f. states that it is the responsibility of each commanding officer to “[e]ncourage supervisors and reporting officers to properly counsel subordinates by providing them timely feedback at the end of each reporting period and providing copies of completed OERs to them prior to submission to the OER administrator.” Article...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2002-150
As proof of his contention, he stated that the marks on the disputed OER are lower than marks he received on his previous and subsequent OERs. In addition, the reporting officer, who was familiar with the applicant's performance, wrote in his section of the OER that he agreed with the supervisor's marks and comments. In this case, the supervisor stated that she consulted with both the previous supervisor as well as the reporting officer in preparing her portion of the disputed OER.
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2007-120
2 Officers are evaluated by a “rating chain,” which normally includes a Supervisor, who is normally the person to whom the Reported-on Officer reports on a daily basis and who completes the first 13 numerical marks in an OER and their supporting comments; a Reporting Officer, who is normally the Supervisor’s Supervisor and who com- pletes the remaining marks and comments in an OER; and the Reviewer, who is normally the Reporting Officer’s The applicant stated that LT D gave her a mediocre...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2007-138
This final decision, dated March 13, 2008, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant, a lieutenant commander (LCDR) in the Coast Guard Reserve, asked the Board to correct his officer evaluation report (OER) for the period June 1, 2005, to May 31, 2006, by • adding his days of active duty and number of inactive duty drills performed during the reporting period to the “Description of Duties” in the disputed OER; removing four derogatory sentences in block 5 of...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 1999-077
LCDR XX = Chief of the Command and XXX at XXX who allegedly informed the XXXX command that XXX was concerned about her performance at XXX. Xxxxx = Coast Guard xxxxx who served as xxxxx in the XXX and XXX xxxxxs and is now the xxxxxxx of the Coast Guard (see statement). However, the only complex xxxxx [the applicant] had been assigned to as an assistant [xxx xxx] in order to gain experience had been dismissed prior to xxx, and she had not yet been in xxxxx on anything other than [the...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2003-040
states that “[t]he Reported-on Officer may reply to any OER regardless of its content and have this reply filed with the OER,” allowing a member the opportunity to “express a view of performance which may differ from that of a rating official.” submitted: Article 10.A.4.g.8. of the Personnel Manual, a reporting officer is permitted to base his or her evaluation of the ROO’s performance on “…other reliable reports or records.” The applicant has submitted no evidence beyond his own affidavit...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2002-015
This final decision, dated April 30, 2003, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST FOR RELIEF The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record either by raising two evaluation marks he received from 3s to 4s, or higher, and removing the supporting comments in an officer evaluation report (OER) he received for the period July 16, 1998, through May 28, 1999, or by removing the entire OER from his record. Regarding Mr. B’s work as project manager, the applicant...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2007-146
Regarding the complaint about his OSF (officer support form) in the disputed OER, the applicant stated that he submitted it to his Supervisor on March 7, 2004, well before the end of the evaluation period and yet “did not receive any request for amplifying information, clarifica- tion or inform[ation] of any discrepancies from [the Supervisor or Senior Reserve Officer] until May 9, 2004, when some additional clarifying information was requested.” Regarding the Reporting Officer’s comment...