DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                       BCMR Docket No. 2005-053 
 
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.  The Chair docketed the case on January 24, 
2005, upon receipt of the completed application.   
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

This  final  decision,  dated  November  17,  2005,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to remove from his record an officer evaluation 
report (OER) covering his performance during a short tour as the Operations Officer of 
the Xxxxxx, a high-endurance cutter, from May 1, 1998, to April 27, 1999.  He also asked 
the Board to remove his failure of selection for promotion to captain in 2004; to back-
date his date of rank as a captain to what it would have been had he been selected for 
promotion in 2004 instead of 2005; and to award him back pay and allowances. 

 
The applicant alleged that in 1998, having been selected for promotion to com-
mander,  he  was  hoping  for  an  assignment  as  the  Executive  Officer  (XO)  of  a  cutter.  
However, he agreed to fill a vacancy for an Operations Officer for one year in exchange 
for a guaranteed 18-month follow-on tour as an XO.  During May, June, and July 1998, 
he attended pipeline training, and he reported to the Xxxxxx as Operations Officer on 
August 12, 1998.  The applicant alleged that upon his arrival, he discovered that his pre-
decessor had been ordered off the cutter by the Commanding Officer (CO).  Moreover, 
he learned that the Xxxxxx had had four different Operations Officers within the prior 
three years.  Morale was very low, and the CO had created an atmosphere of “fear and 
mistrust.”    He  found  that  the  CO  “regularly  belittled  and  yelled  at  junior  officers  for 

minor mistakes,” lost his temper, and cussed at them in front of enlisted members.  He 
alleged that the CO would scream at his subordinates, even the XO, over very minor 
matters, such as not attending an optional pyrotechnics training.  He alleged that “the 
CO’s regular violent and irrational public treatment of officers created a dysfunctional 
command climate for officers and crew alike.”  He alleged that most of them tried to 
avoid the CO, but he had to interact with the CO frequently. 

 
As  Operations  Officer  of  the  Xxxxxx,  the  applicant  alleged,  he  “consistently 
mirrored the command’s goals and never deviated from his primary focus on the cut-
ter’s safe and effective operation.”  The cutter was at sea for seven of the nine months he 
served on board.  He alleged that while he was aboard, the cutter “flawlessly performed 
all  directed  operations,  including  the  highly  visible  xxxxxxxx  capsize  and  recovery 
during a stormy winter Alaskan Patrol in the Bering Sea”—a mission that contributed 
to the cutter’s earning a “Battle E” award. 

 

 
In  May  1999,  the  applicant  left  the  Xxxxxx  and  became  the  XO  of  a  middle-
endurance  cutter  on  the  East  Coast,  in accordance with his agreement with the afloat 
detailer.  Upon his departure from the Xxxxxx, he inquired about his OER, and the XO 
told him that he had completed his part as Supervisor and that it was in the CO’s in-
box.  However, the applicant did not receive it and so called the Xxxxxx sometime in the 
fall of 1999 and asked its new XO about his OER.  The new XO asked the CO about it 
and  told  the  applicant  that  the  CO  had  responded  by  saying  that  he  had  planned  to 
“fire” the applicant and “put him ashore in some Mexican or Central American Port” 
because the applicant had shown “gross disrespect to his commanding officer and was 
incompetent.”    The  CO  also  said  that  he  was  still  working  on  the  applicant’s  OER.  
Thereafter,  the  applicant  alleged,  both  he  and  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command 
(CGPC) made repeated inquiries about his OER.  The CO was also holding up the OERs 
of the former XO, the Engineering Officer, and the Weapons Officer.  The CO did not 
complete the OERs until May 15, 2000, just before he departed the Xxxxxx.   

 
The  applicant  pointed  out  that  the  marks  in  the  disputed  OER  “are  far  lower 
than [his] career average … and there is no comment regarding his potential for promo-
tion.”    In  addition,  “none  of  the  extremely  derogatory  comments  [the  CO]  had  made 
about him orally to [the new XO of the Xxxxxx] are included.”  Moreover, on the very 
important Comparison Scale on the OER, the CO gave him an “average” mark in the 
fourth position, whereas the applicant had not received a Comparison Scale mark lower 
than the fifth position since he was a lieutenant.  The applicant argued that the CO vio-
lated  the  Personnel  Manual  when  he  delayed  the  OER  by  a  year,  failed  to  include  a 
comment  on  the  applicant’s  potential  for  promotion,  and  awarded  him  numerical 
marks that are inconsistent with the comments.  The applicant argued that his record 
would  have  been  better  and  that  he  would  have  been  selected  for  promotion  if  this 
erroneous OER had not been in his record when the selection board reviewed it in 2004. 

 
The applicant alleged that he never received any negative feedback from the CO 
and  was  surprised  by  what  the  CO  said  to  the  new  XO  when  he  inquired  about  his 
OER.  He stated that the CO’s “startlingly derogatory remarks, made to an officer who 
had no official need to know, perhaps explain the low numerical marks on [the appli-
cant’s] OER but make the accompanying positive comments all the more baffling.” 

  
The applicant argued that the CO’s failure to include a recommendation regard-
ing promotion in the disputed OER violated Article 10.A.2.e.2. of the Personnel Manual 
and therefore prejudiced his record before the selection board.  He stated that the com-
ment that he had recently been selected for promotion to commander was “worthless 
and unenlightening … for the purposes of determining [his] potential for promotion,” 
which is one of the primary purposes of comments in that block of an OER.  He argued 
that because COs customarily include a recommendation for promotion in an OER and 
all  his  other  OERs  had  such  recommendations,  the  lack  of  one  in  the  disputed  OER 
“was a devastating omission that would hardly go unnoticed by a selection board.” 

The applicant argued that regulation requires that OERs be submitted to CGPC 
within 45 days of the end of the evaluation period “to ensure accurate and dependable 
performance  information  …  .    Logically,  the  longer  the  time  between  a  service  mem-
ber’s performance and the issuance of the command’s assessment of that performance, 
the less reliable it must be deemed.”  The applicant argued that because the CO com-
pleted the OER a year late, the CO’s assessment of his performance “could not possibly 
be accurate nor should it be relied upon to determine [the applicant’s] potential for pro-
motion to captain. … [N]othing about that OER can be deemed reliable or useful.  Even 
the comments and marks by [the XO], who had departed the command by the time [the 
CO] finally found time to sign and forward the OER, cannot be relied upon since there 
is no way to know what, if any, data originally submitted by [the XO] still remains.” 

 
The applicant stated that except for a lack of a recommendation for promotion, 
the  comments  in  the  OER  reflect  his  outstanding  performance.    He  alleged  that  the 
numerical marks are too low and thus are inconsistent with the comments.  He alleged 
that the two marks of 4 (on a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 being best) he received in the per-
formance categories “Looking Out for Others” and “Workplace Climate” are especially 
inconsistent,  considering  the  “glowing  corresponding  comments”  he  received  to  sup-
port  them.    He  argued  that  the  comments  show  that  his  performance  in  these  areas 
clearly exceeded the expected standard mark of 4.  Therefore, he argued, it is possible 
that the comments were written by the XO, who had a high opinion of his work, but 
that the numerical marks assigned by the XO were subsequently changed by the CO, 
contrary to regulation, and thus are now “wildly divergent” with the comments. 

 
The applicant argued that the marks throughout the disputed OER are too low 
and “obviously out of synch” with the comments and “plainly aberrant when compared 
with OERs received throughout the rest of his career.”  However, he stated, the most 
egregious error in the OER is the mark on the Comparison Scale in the fourth (middle) 

position.  He alleged that this mark is inconsistent with his actual performance and with 
other Comparison Scale marks he has received.  In support of his allegations, he submit-
ted three sworn statements, which are summarized below. 

 

Statement of the EO 

 
The Engineering Officer (EO) stated that from 1997 to 2000, he “observed ques-
tionable  treatment  [by  the  CO]  of  his  Wardroom  and  Executive  Officer  numerous 
times.”  He stated that the CO was known as a “screamer” after two incidents in which 
he yelled at junior officers for their improper actions.  Although the CO had reason to 
be upset during those incidents, he stated, it was not acceptable for the CO, in another 
incident, to yell at the XO in front of the crew about a boat operation that the XO was 
not  involved  with.    The  EO  alleged  that  “[d]uring  this  instance  the  leadership  and 
command climate became dysfunctional, leaving the chain of command ineffective.”   

 
The EO stated that the CO never gave any positive or constructive feedback to 
his subordinates.  Although the cutter received a prestigious award during the appli-
cant’s tour, the CO put it in a box on his shelf instead of mounting it for the crew to 
enjoy.  The EO also stated that under the CO’s command, no department head or XO 
ever received an end of tour award even though they performed many critical missions 
flawlessly.  Moreover, the EO stated, the CO withheld his own OER and that of the XO, 
as well as the applicant’s, for more than a year.   

 
The  EO  stated that he worked with the applicant on a daily basis and thought 
“his  work  onboard  was  exemplary  and  always  mirrored  the  command’s  goals.”    He 
stated that the applicant’s focus was always on the safe and effective operation of the 
cutter.  He alleged that the “command climate” on the Xxxxxx “was so poor and dys-
functional  that  no  evaluation  provided  by  [the  CO]  could  be  considered  an  accurate 
evaluation of the member’s performance and should be discarded.” 
 
Statement of the Electronics Division Officer, a Chief Warrant Officer 

 
The Electronics Division Officer (EDO) stated that the applicant was his immedi-
ate supervisor aboard the Xxxxxx.  Prior to the applicant’s arrival, the cutter had “gone 
through  four  OPS  Department  Heads,  each  relieved  for  performance  issues”  since 
August 1996.  The EDO stated that the applicant was a competent Operations Officer 
and one of the best supervisors he has had.  He stated that the applicant “saved” the 
department and should have received an award for his performance on the cutter. 

 
The  EDO  called  the  wardroom  “a  sorrowful  place”  under  the  CO’s  command.  
Most  officers  “walked  around  with  their  heads  down.”    The  EDO  stated  that  the  CO 
“only verbally assaulted [him] once” when he reported for an expected briefing on his 
last  day  on  the  cutter.    When  he  reminded  the  CO  of  why  he  was  reporting,  the  CO 
“threw  his  hands  up  in  the  air  and  asked  [him]  if  [he]  was  serious  and  if  [he]  was 

stupid,” so the EDO left without the “out brief.”  The EDO further stated, he “can recall 
personally witnessing unfathomable outbreaks from him on three occasions.”  On one 
occasion when he was in training on the bridge, the CO ordered the officer of the deck 
to give the EDO control of the ship and then ordered the EDO to drive the ship “pretty 
aggressively”  through  some  Russian  fishing  vessels  on  the  Marine  Boundary  Line.”  
The cutter came within 100 yards of one of the fishing vessels and “[t]he whole Com-
mand Cadre turned very white.”  The CO then began yelling at the officer of the deck.  
When the XO suggested that they discuss the matter elsewhere, the CO yelled at the XO 
and stormed off the bridge.  Another time, the CO called all of the officers to the ward-
room and yelled at them over a matter so minor that the EDO could not believe the CO 
was upset about it.  On a third occasion, the CO yelled incomprehensibly at the officer 
of the deck while they were approaching a port.  Finally, the EDO stated, he rarely saw 
the CO as the CO never ate in the wardroom and never invited guests to his cabin. 

Statement of the Subsequent XO 

 
The  XO  who  began  serving  on  the  Xxxxxx  after  the  applicant  departed  stated 
that “[o]ne issue which started out as a minor irritation for [the CO] and later turned 
out to become a major source of professional and command embarrassment … was the 
subject of extremely late officer evaluation reports.”  When he reported aboard, the out-
going XO told him that the OERs were written and in the CO’s in-box.  Therefore, he 
assumed  all  was  well  until  the  applicant  contacted  him  in  the  late  fall  of  1999  to  ask 
about his missing OER.  When the XO asked the CO about the OER, the CO stated that 
the applicant had shown “gross disrespect to his commanding officer and was incompe-
tent.”  The XO responded by stating that if the CO was serious, the OER should reflect 
the  applicant’s  poor  performance.    The  CO  replied  that  he  was  still  working  on  the 
OER.    Thereafter,  the  XO  was  asked  several  times  by  the  applicant  and  the  Officer 
Personnel  Management  Division  to  try  to  “break  the  OER  out  of  the  cabin.”    At  the 
time,  the  Engineering  Officer,  the  Weapons  Officer,  and  the  prior  XO  also  had  OERs 
awaiting signature by the CO.  The CO did not complete them until just before leaving 
the  Xxxxxx.    The  XO  noted  that  when  the  CO  completed  the  applicant’s  OER,  it  had 
none of the negative comments or marks that he had previously discussed with the CO 
and that the CO never explained his behavior regarding the extremely late evaluations. 

 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

Commissioned in May 1984, the applicant was first assigned to a cutter as a deck 
watch officer.  He was promoted to lieutenant junior grade on November 23, 1985.  In 
June 1986, he was assigned to a base in xxxxxxxx as an assistant marine environmental 
response  officer  and  later  became  the  base  administrative  officer.    From  June  1988 
through  August  1990,  the  applicant  served  as  a  Group  Operations  Officer,  managing 
operations  for  a  variety  of  small  boats  and  tugs  and  a  marine  safety  office.    He  was 
promoted to lieutenant on May 23, 1989.  From September 1990 through June 1993, the 
applicant  served  as  a  supply  officer  on  a  high  endurance  cutter.    Seven  of  his  early 

OERs  lack  express  recommendations  about  promotion  but  discuss  his  potential  for 
assuming increased responsibility or his recent selection for promotion to the next rank.  
From July 1993 through June 1995, he attended graduate school under orders to receive 
a master’s degree in industrial hygiene with a minor in hazardous materials.  He was 
promoted to lieutenant commander on August 1, 1994.   

 
From July 1995 through April 1998, the applicant served as the chief of a marine 
safety and occupational health section and assistant chief of a safety and environmental 
health branch.  In the first OER he received at this post, he received three marks of 5, 
sixteen marks of 6, and four marks of 7 in the performance categories and a mark of 6 
on  the  Comparison  Scale.1    In  addition,  the  Reviewer  added  a  page  of  very  positive 
comments with a mark of 6 on the Comparison Scale.  His Reporting Officer highly rec-
ommended him for promotion.  In the second OER he received at this post, the appli-
cant received one mark of 5, sixteen marks of 6, and six marks of 7 in the various per-
formance categories and a mark of 6 on the Comparison Scale.  His Reporting Officer 
“highly recommended [the applicant] for accelerated promotion at the earliest oppor-
tunity.”  In addition, the Reviewer added a page of positive comments with a mark of 5 
on the Comparison Scale.  In the third OER the applicant received in this position, he 
received eleven marks of 6 and seven marks of 7 in the performance categories, and a 
mark  of  6  on  the Comparison Scale.  In addition, the Reviewer added a page of very 
positive  comments  with  a  mark  of  6  on  the  Comparison  Scale.    Both  the  Reporting 
Officer and the Reviewer included comments recommending the applicant for acceler-
ated  promotion.    The  applicant  received  a  Commendation  Medal  upon  his  departure 
from the unit. 

 
From  August  12,  1998,  to  April  27,  1999,  the  applicant  served  as  the  Xxxxxx’s 
Operations  Officer.    On  April  10,  1999,  he  initiated  his  OER  by  submitting  his  own 
input.  The marks and comments he received for this period appear in the chart below. 

 

# 
CATEGORY 
3a  Planning and 
Preparedness 

3b  Using 

Resources 

MARKS AND COMMENTS IN DISPUTED OER 

MARK  WRITTEN COMMENTS 

5 

5 

Volunteered to fill critical shortage HEC Ops for one year.  Period included KIATF West 
counterdrug deployment & 2 Alaskan Patrols (ALPAT), including US/CIS Maritime Boundary 
Line (MBL) and Bering Sea SAR Standby … Great insight and prep as patrol planner; superb 
results in tactical operations including LE tactics off Central America, MBL incursion detection 
and SAR standby positioning.  Coordinated joint helo ops w/CGC ALERT; VERTREP/UNREP 
w/ USN FFG & Oiler, CTU reliefs and all air support.  Full utilization & understanding of HEC 

                                                 
1 The Comparison Scale is not actually numbered.  However, as with the performance categories, there 
are seven possible marks.  A mark in the middle, or fourth, position means that the officer, in comparison 
with all other officers of the same rank whom the Reporting Officer has known throughout his career, is 
an “exceptional performer; very competent, highly respected professional.”  A mark in the fifth position 
means  that  the  officer  is  a  “distinguished  performer;  give  tough, challenging, visible leadership assign-
ments.”    A  mark  in  the  sixth  position  means  that  the  officer  is  “strongly  recommended  for  accelerated 
promotion.”  A mark in the seventh and highest position means that the officer is the “best officer of this 
grade” known to the Reporting Officer throughout the Reporting Officer’s career. 

3c  Results/ 

Effectiveness 

3d  Adaptability 

3e  Professional 
Competence 

4a  Speaking and 

Listening 

4b  Writing 

5a 

Looking Out for 
Others 

5b  Developing 

Others 

5c  Directing 

Others 

5d 

Teamwork 

5e  Workplace 

Climate 

5f 

Evaluations 

6 

5 

5 

5 

5 

4 

5 

5 

5 

4 

5 

shipboard C2 system contr buted significantly to reliable comms with TACON, SAR plan and 
tactical briefs.  Negotiated best patrol schedule possible thru partnering with TACON; result was 
optimized endurance, quality log stops and max R&R for crew.  All commitments professionally 
executed, with consistent on time performance … Excellent shiphandler, consistently “go to” for 
tight maneuvers, including complex moorings in Guatemala, Dutch Harbor and heavy wx SAR 
towing ops … Coaches JO’s during moorings; evolutions consistently successful building confi-
dence in junior shiphandlers.  TAO for all drills and GUNEX including totally integrated live fire 
exercises of all weapons systems.  Successfully managed complex high tempo operations, 
complete with extensive reporting requirements; deployments required concurrent management 
and execution of 114 aircraft control hrs; 11 TACON shifts; 23 radio circuits; over 10,000 msgs; 
5 comms shifts, 19 boardings, 12 SAR cases and 1 MBL incursion. 
Good verbal communication skills; Ability to persuade and motivate personnel led to sustained 
excellent mission performance.  Prepared brief for VADM & D17 CO on MBL ops; excellent 
briefer/tactical insight.  Responsible for drafting all operational msg traffic & reports, typically 
well crafted and comprehensive.  Drafted significant organizational correspondence, including 
largest section of COMDT Quality Award submission, sensitive admin investigation, Y2K plan, 
revision to CO Battle Orders, as well as 7 awards. 

Coordinated and conducted over 12 trng sessions for OOD’s; expanded JO knowledge of 
systems, techniques and procedures…Successfully coached JO’s thru over 20 special 
shiphandling evolutions building confidence & proficiency…Worked extensively with low 
performers to motivate & modify behavior; in all cases, result was improved performance w/o 
administrative action…Led understaffed/inexperienced dept thru 3 challenging patrols and two 
short inport periods with extremely ambitious equipment grooms, installs and certifications, 
including demanding WLR-1(H) install; install was completed ahead of schedule and resulted in 
successful calibration/final certification.  Significantly bolstered team concept and cohesion 
within Comms & Nav divisions, historically wrought w/ personality clashes and disharmony; both 
divisions running smoothly despite diverse makeup and critical personnel shortages.  Assumed 
active role as senior dept head/OOD, providing guidance to significantly junior peers. …As 
active XO, intervened on 3 occasions during potentially volatile incidents, preventing escalation 
& promoting amenable conflict resolution for member & Command. …Extensive use of 
employee reward and recognition; drafted numerous personal awards for good performance; 
Effective leadership evidenced through 10 subordinate promotion this period.  All evals and 
OERs conscientiously prepared & on time. 

6 
7 

Signature of the XO as the applicant’s Supervisor, dated April 15, 1999 
Reporting 
Officer’s 
Comments 

NA 

8a 

Initiative 

8b 

Judgment 

8c  Responsibility 

8d  Professional 

Presence 

8e  Health & Well-

Being 

9 

Comparison 
Scale 

5 

5 

5 

5 

6 

4 

10  Potential 

NA 

Concur w/ supervisor.  Assumed OPS Boss role immediately amidst ALPAT w/o relief and 
made significant and immediate improvements to watchstanding, shiphandling, OOD training, 
and unit Combat Systems procedures.  Partnered w/ TACON & OPCON to ensure best 
possible patrol schedule; enhanced crew morale and subsequently, crew performance.  Well 
prepared; stayed one step ahead during operations and kept CO/XO well informed during high 
op tempo.  Effective in leading obstinate and diverse dept; achieved good performance and 
teamwork. 
Immediately sought out ways to add value early on; vast improvements in navigation 
procedures and nav briefs; assumed Unit Safety Supervisor role due to previous training in 
safety/industrial hygienics.  On own time assisted Trinidad & Tobago CG w/ voyage planning for 
Pacific to Caribbean transit.  Sound judgment; does not hesitate to assume positive control of 
bridge or CIC watch; particularly during high stress or high tempo evolutions.  Significant 
participant in command overhaul of quality initiatives; integral player in development of 
command vision, business plan and significant quality improvements during the period.  
Considerable prof devlpmnt; qualified mast of Sail Training Vsl “ARGUS”; maintains merchant 
master’s license & World Safety Organization government credentials…Is lead author of 
international science journal manuscript submission titled, “CG Exposure to Gasoline, MTBE, 
and Benzene Vapors During Inspection of Tank Barges.”  Represented Command/CG during 
official visits to Acapulco/Mazatlan Mayor’s Offices & MX Naval Flag O’s.  Superb physi-
cal/uniform appearance; promotes fitness through daily workout regimen. 

NA 

Deserving of his recent selection to O-5.  Demonstrated excellent initiative, dedication and self-
confidence in the extremely demanding and challenging position of HEC Operations Officer; 
Full utilization of HEC C2 system has resulted in higher operational proficiency and enhanced 
mission capability; made significant and lasting contributions to operational readiness…A very 
proficient shiphandler and an effective leader.  Well-rounded and professionally diverse; 
maintained safety credentials as well as Merchant Mariner’s License despite demanding 

workload.  Recommended for assignments of greater responsibility; fully qualified for and 
deserving of assignment as Executive Officer of a WMEC. 

11  Signature of the CO as the Reporting Officer, dated May 15, 2000 
12  Signature of the Reviewer, dated June 13, 2000 
 
 
From  June  1999  through  May  2001,  the  applicant  served  as  the  XO  of  a cutter.  
On January 7, 2000, he was promoted to commander.  On his first OER as an XO, he 
received three marks of 5, twelve marks of 6, and three marks of 7 in the various per-
formance categories and a mark of 5 on the Comparison Scale.  His CO recommended 
him for promotion with his peers and highly recommended him for command afloat.  
On  his  second  OER  in  this  position,  the  applicant  received  three  marks  of  5,  eleven 
marks of 6, and four marks of 7 in the performance categories and a mark of 5 on the 
Comparison Scale.  His CO recommended him for promotion with his peers.  The appli-
cant received a Commendation Medal for his service on this cutter. 

 
From May 2001 through March 2003, the applicant served as the XO for counter-
drug operations at a joint command covering 32 countries and 12 million square miles.  
On his first OER in this position, he received one mark of 5, eight marks of 6, and nine 
marks of 7 in the performance categories and a mark of 7 on the Comparison Scale.  His 
Reporting Officer, a brigadier general, strongly recommended him for promotion.  The 
Reviewer, a Vice Admiral, added a page of comments concurring in the evaluation and 
recommending the applicant for accelerated promotion with a Comparison Scale mark 
of 6.  On his second OER in this position, the applicant received seven marks of 6 and 
eleven marks of 7 in the various performance categories and a mark of 7 on the Com-
parison Scale.  His Reporting Officer strongly recommended him for promotion at the 
earliest  opportunity  and  noted  that  the  applicant  had  potential  to  serve  at  flag  rank 
(rear admiral and above).  The Reviewer added a page of comments concurring in the 
evaluation  (but  commenting  that  the  numerical  marks  might  be  inflated)  and  recom-
mending the applicant for accelerated promotion with a Comparison Scale mark of 6.  
The applicant received a Defense Meritorious Service Medal for this service. 

 
From April 2003 through the date of his application, the applicant served as the 
CO of a medium endurance cutter.  On his first OER as CO, dated March 31, 2004, he 
received eleven marks of 6 and six marks of 7 in the performance categories and a mark 
of  5  on  the  Comparison  Scale.    His  Reporting  Officer  strongly  recommended  him  for 
promotion to captain “with best of peers.”  In July 2004, the applicant was not selected 
for promotion.  In his second OER as CO, dated March 31, 2005, the applicant received 
six marks of 6 and twelve marks of 7 in the performance categories and a mark of 6 on 
the Comparison Scale.  His Reporting Officer highly recommended him for accelerated 
promotion ahead of his peers.  In June 2005, the applicant was awarded a Meritorious 
Service Medal.  In July 2005, he was selected for promotion to captain. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
On June 8, 2005, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 
an advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny relief in this case.  
He  based  his  decision  in  part  on  a  memorandum  on  the  case  submitted by the Com-
mander of the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC) and on signed statements by 
the CO and XO of the Xxxxxx. 
 
 
CGPC stated that the lack of a comment regarding the applicant’s potential for 
promotion is not a violation of policy or of the Personnel Manual.  CGPC argued that 
the rating chain fulfilled the requirements of Article 10.A.4.c.9.b. of the Personnel Man-
ual by including comments about the applicant’s potential for greater leadership roles 
and  responsibilities in the disputed OER.  CGPC also argued that although OERs are 
supposed to be completed no later than 45 days after the end of an evaluation period, 
lateness  per  se  is  not  a  sufficient  reason  to  remove  an  OER  from  an  officer’s  record.  
CGPC  alleged  that  the  untimeliness  of  the  OER did not render the applicant’s record 
incomplete for any board, panel, or personnel management decision. 
 

 
CGPC also argued that the applicant’s assessment of a poor command climate on 
the Xxxxxx is “not consistent with the documented superior achievements of the unit” 
under  the  CO’s  leadership.    CGPC  noted  that  under  the  command  of  the  CO,  the 
Xxxxxx was awarded the Commandant’s Quality Award, Bronze Award, for which the 
criteria are excellent “leadership, strategic planning, customer and mission focus, meas-
urement,  analysis  and  knowledge  management,  human  resource  focus,  process  man-
agement,  and  performance  results”;  and  the  “Battle  E”  for  operational  excellence.  
CGPC argued that the Xxxxxx’s receipt of these awards disproves the applicant’s claim 
of a dysfunctional command climate on board. 

CGPC alleged that the applicant “provided no evidence that the disputed OER 
failed to accurately portray his performance.”  CGPC pointed out that the statement by 
the XO (see below) indicates that the CO did not change the marks he had assigned and 
argued that the applicant’s allegation that the CO changed the XO’s marks is therefore 
“unfounded and extremely irresponsible.”  CGPC argued that the marks in the OER are 
not inconsistent with the comments and that the comments appropriately support the 
marks of 4 and 5 assigned by the XO.  CGPC stated that a mark of 4 is not a low mark 
but  “the  standard  performance  mark  that  describes  the  high  level  of  performance 
expected of all Coast Guard officers.”  

 
CGPC argued that the applicant’s comparison of the disputed OERs with others 
he  has  received  over  the  course  of  his  career  is  inappropriate  and  irrelevant  because 
rating chains evaluate an officer by comparing his performance to the written standards 
on the OER form, not to his performance during other periods.  Regarding the mark of 
4  on  the  Comparison  Scale,  CGPC  stated  that  since  the  mark  represents  the  CO’s 
ranking  of  the  applicant  in  comparison  with  all other lieutenant commanders the CO 
had known, the fact that the Comparison Scale mark on the disputed OER is lower than 
others the applicant has received does not mean that it is erroneous. 

 
Finally, CGPC noted that the applicant did not timely appeal the disputed OER 
but waited until after he failed of selection for captain.  CGPC stated that the applicant 
should have availed himself of the OER Reply process or timely appealed the OER to 
the Personnel Records Review Board if he believed it was inaccurate.  CGPC also noted 
that in 2004, the applicant did not avail himself of the opportunity to submit a letter to 
the selection board.  Therefore, CGPC argued, the criticism of the disputed OER is both 
“recently conceived” and unproven. 

Statement of the CO of the Xxxxxx 

 

 

 
The CO stated that the marks and comments in the disputed OER accurately por-
tray the applicant’s performance on the Xxxxxx.  He alleged that the applicant’s allega-
tions about his conduct and leadership constitute gross distortions and misrepresenta-
tion of the facts.  The CO alleged that during numerous exit interviews, Xxxxxx crew-
members complained to him about the applicant’s “belittling manner and poor leader-
ship skills.”  The CO stated that he counseled the applicant about this problem, but the 
applicant “accepted constructive criticism poorly.”  He alleged that the EDO’s “story” 
about  his  attempt  to  do  an  out  brief  “is  pure  fabrication”  and  that  the  “pyrotechnics 
‘incident’  was  caused  by  many  officers,  including  [the  applicant],  not  reporting  to 
mandatory training who were found watching videos in the wardroom instead, a point 
made to me by numerous crewmembers during the training.  I expected better leader-
ship from them than that.”  The CO alleged that the subsequent XO’s statement about 
his response to the applicant’s inquiry about his late OER is also “pure fabrication.” 

 
The CO alleged that the morale in the applicant’s department was poor and his 
relationships with other department heads and chief petty officers were often stormy.  
The CO alleged that the applicant “improved steadily as a ship handler but remained a 
poor coach during the period in question.”  He also alleged that the preparation for the 
award, which the applicant took credit for, was spearheaded by the ship’s yeoman.  The 
CO stated that because the applicant was filling a billet below his grade level, he ini-
tially expected better performance.  The applicant’s “operational skills were improving” 
and  “to  fully  support  the  numerical  marks  [in  the  disputed  OER],  the  narrative  was 
made  deliberately  strong,  but  should  not  be  construed  as  justification  for  higher 
numerical marks.” 

 
Regarding the lack of a recommendation for promotion, the CO stated that the 
applicant “was not performing at the Commander level while aboard XXXXXX, and his 
performance in such a junior billet would not enable me to make a recommendation for 
selection to captain.” 

Statement by the XO of the Xxxxxx 
 

The  XO  stated  that  as  the  applicant’s  direct  Supervisor,  he  was  responsible for 
preparing the disputed OER.  He stated that in accordance with customary practice, he 
prepared the marks and comments in the Supervisor’s portion of the OER and drafted 
comments and recommended numerical marks for the CO’s portion as well.  The XO 
stated  that  after  reviewing  the  disputed  OER,  he  does  not  detect  any  changes  to  the 
marks he assigned or to the comments.  In addition, he stated, it appears that the CO 
accepted all but one of his recommendations for numerical marks in the CO’s portion.  
He stated that he believes he recommended a higher Comparison Scale mark than the 
one the CO chose, but noted that choosing the Comparison Scale mark was within the 
sole discretion of the CO as Reporting Officer. 

 
The XO stated that in drafting the comments for the disputed OER, he intention-
ally omitted a recommendation for promotion because the applicant had already been 
selected  for  promotion  to  commander,  but  was  not  yet  promoted;  had  performed  a 
short tour on the Xxxxxx; and was slated for assignment as the XO of a cutter.  There-
fore, the applicant “had already achieved the assignment and promotion points that I 
would have felt qualified to recommend.  His subsequent potential for assignment as 
Commanding Officer and promotion to Captain would be determined by his perform-
ance during his subsequent assignments, particularly as an O-5 Executive Officer.” 

 
The  XO  alleged  that  the  applicant’s  “assertion  that  [the  CO]  failed  to  provide 
numerical marks that reasonably compare to the OER comments regarding [the appli-
cant’s] performance is without merit.  Indeed, the comments were carefully crafted to 
justify those marks.  While I do consider [his] performance to be above average, I would 
argue  that  comments  like  ‘effective  in  leading  obstinate  and  diverse  dept;  achieved 
good performance and teamwork’ are not superlative in nature.”  

 
In light of these statements by the CO and XO and CGPC’s memorandum, the 
JAG  argued  that  “there  is  nothing  in  the  record  to  show  that  the  OER  was  anything 
other  than  a  fair  and  accurate  evaluation  of  Applicant’s  performance.”    CGPC  stated 
that  the  XO  timely  prepared  the OER and made recommended marks and comments 
which the CO could properly rely on pursuant to Article 10.A.2.e.2.a. of the Personnel 
Manual,  which  states  that  the  Reporting  Officer  may  rely  on  “direct  observation,  the 
OSF  or  other  information  provided  by  the  Supervisor,  and  other  reliable  records  and 
reports.”  Citing Germano v. United States, 26 Cl. Ct. 1446, 1460 (1992), the JAG argued 
that the OER should not be removed from the applicant’s record because he has failed 
to show a “clear and prejudicial violation of a statute or regulation.” 

 
The JAG argued that the applicant’s failure to file an OER Reply or to seek relief 
from the PRRB “should be considered as relevant evidence that he accepted his rating 
official’s  characterization  of  his  performance  as  described  in  the  OER at issue.  While 
not determinative of his due process rights to apply to the BCMR, his failure to act is 
probative of his state of mind upon receipt of the disputed OER.” 

 

The JAG also argued that the quality of the applicant’s other OERs is irrelevant 
to  the  accuracy  of  the  dispute  OER.    He  noted  that  in  Grieg  v.  United  States,  640  F.2d 
1261,  1269  (Ct.  Cl.  1981),  the  court  held  that  “the  fact  that  this  fine  officer  had  better 
ratings  before  and  after  the  challenged  OER  is  of  no  legal  moment  nor  of  probative 
value as to the rating period covered by the one OER with which he is dissatisfied.” 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 

On June 15, 2005, the Chair sent the applicant copies of the views of the Coast 
Guard and invited him to respond within 30 days.  The applicant was granted an exten-
sion and responded on August 1, 2005.   

 
The applicant argued that the CO’s denials that he fostered a negative command 
climate “ring hollow.”  He pointed out that the CO did not name any of the crewmem-
bers who are alleged to have complained about him during their departure interviews.  
The applicant also pointed out that the comment in the disputed OER that he enhanced 
the morale and performance of the crew contradict the CO’s allegations about how he 
treated the crew.  He alleged that comments in the disputed OER about his ship hand-
ling and coaching of junior officers conflict with the CO’s current allegations about his 
performance.  In addition, he alleged that comments in the OER about his contribution 
to  the  “Battle  E”  award  conflict  with  the  CO’s  statement  regarding  the  project  being 
spearheaded by the ship’s yeoman. 

 
The  applicant  argued  that  the  statements  by  the  EO  and  EDO  refute  the  CO’s 
allegations about his relations with other department heads and chief petty officers.  He 
also  pointed  out  that  whereas  the  XO  described  his  performance  as “above average,” 
and CO alleged that it was “poor.”  In addition, the applicant pointed out that the CO’s 
claim that he did not know that the applicant had a pending assignment as the XO of a 
cutter  conflicts  with  the  XO’s  statement  that  he  knew  about  it  and  therefore  did  not 
include a recommendation for promotion in the OER.  The applicant alleged that it is 
unimaginable  that  the CO did not discuss the matter with the XO and know that the 
applicant had been promised a follow-on position as an XO.  The applicant argued that 
even if the CO was unaware of his next assignment, his ignorance “is evidence, at the 
very least, of a serious disconnect between [the CO] and his XO as well as members of 
his wardroom.”  The applicant argued that the CO’s “one-page statement of generalized 
denials, devoid of corroborating information or even names of individuals who might 
be called upon to offer relevant testimony, makes no sense” and “should not be relied 
upon.”  In addition, he argued that the XO’s “vague and largely unenlightening state-
ment adds nothing of substance to the questions before this Board” and fails to corrobo-
rate the CO’s assertions. 

 
Finally,  the  applicant  alleged  that  the  fact that the CO altered the XO’s recom-
mended mark on the Comparison Scale “certainly suggests that other marks were later 

altered  by  [the  CO]  as  well”  even  if,  after  five  years,  the  XO  cannot  detect  any  other 
changes. 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

 
 
Article 10.A. of the Personnel Manual governs the preparation of OERs. Article 
10.A.1.b.1.  of  the  manual  in  effect  in  1999  provides  that  “Commanding  officers  must 
ensure accurate, fair, and objective evaluations are provided to all officers under their 
command.”  Article 10.A.2.c.2.d. provides that an officer should initiate his own OER by 
completing  his  part  of  the  OER  form  and  submitting  his  input  no  later  than  21  days 
before the end of the reporting period.  An officer is also supposed to inform CGPC if 
he does not receive an official copy of an OER within 90 days after the end of a report-
ing period. 
 

Article  10.A.4.d.4.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  provides  that  a  Supervisor  should 
prepare assign the reported-on officer marks in the first thirteen performance categories 
in accordance with the written descriptions of performance on the OER form.  Written 
comments are to be added to support the marks, particularly those that are higher or 
lower than a 4.  Written comments are supposed to be consistent with the marks.  Arti-
cle 10.A.2.d.2. states that the Supervisor should complete his part of the OER and sub-
mit  it  to  the  Reporting  Officer  no  later  than  10  days  after  the  end  of  the  reporting 
period. 
 

Article 10.A.2.e.2.e. provides that the Reporting Officer completes the remainder 
of  the  OER  and  submits  it  to  the  Reviewer  no  later  than  30  days  after  the  end of the 
reporting period.  Article 10.A.2.e.2.c. states that the Reporting Officer “shall return a 
report for correction or reconsideration if the Supervisor's submission is found incon-
sistent with actual performance or unsubstantiated by narrative comments.  The Report-
ing Officer may not direct that an evaluation mark or comment be changed … .”  Article 
10.A.4.c.7.d. provides that in preparing an OER, the Reporting Officer “shall draw on 
his or her own observations, information provided by the Supervisor, and other infor-
mation accumulated during the reporting period.”  Article 10.A.4.c.8.a. states that the 
Reporting  Officer  completes  the  Comparison  Scale by “fill[ing] in the circle that most 
closely reflects the Reporting Officer’s ranking of the Reported-on Officer relative to all 
other officers of the same grade the Reporting Officer has known.”  Article 10.A.4.c.9. 
provides  that  in  block  10  of  an  OER,  the  Reporting  Officer  “shall  comment  on  the 
Reported-on  Officer’s  potential  for  greater  leadership  roles  and  responsibilities  in  the 
Coast Guard. … Comments in this section reflect the judgment of the Reporting Officer 
and  may  include,  but  are  not  limited  to, the following:  - Qualification to assume the 
duties  of  the  next  grade.    -  Specialties  or  types  of  assignment,  such  as  command,  for 
which the Reported-on Officer is qualified or shows aptitude.  - Recommendations for 
selection to a senior service school.  - Special talents or skills … .” 

 

Article 10.A.2.f.2. provides that it is the responsibility of the Reviewer to ensure 
that an OER “reflects a reasonably consistent picture of the Reported-on Officer’s per-
formance and potential.”   Article 10.A.2.f.2. states that the Reviewer should submit an 
OER to CGPC no later than 45 days after the end of the reporting period. 
 
 
Article  10.A.4.g.  allows  an  officer  to  file  a  reply  to  his  OER,  within  15  days  of 
receiving a copy of it, to “express a view of performance which may differ from that of a 
rating official.”  The reply is forwarded up the rating chain, whose members may attach 
written responses, before being entered in the officer’s record with the OER by CGPC. 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

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.2   
 
 
The applicant requested an oral hearing before the Board.  The Chair, act-
ing pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.51, denied the request and recommended disposition of 
the case without a hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommendation. 
 
 
 Absent  specific  evidence  to  the  contrary,  the  Board  presumes  that  an 
applicant’s rating officials acted “correctly, lawfully, and in good faith” in making their 
evaluations.3  Once an applicant has rebutted the presumption of regularity by present-
ing at least some evidence that “specifically and convincingly contradicts his rating offi-
cials’ marks and comments,”4 the Board weighs the evidence in the record to determine 
whether the applicant has met his burden of proof—the preponderance of the evidence 
—with respect to the disputed OER.5  The Board determines whether the applicant has 
proved  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  the  disputed  OER  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.6  With 
this standard in mind, the Board has carefully considered all of the evidence regarding 
the disputed OER and draws the following conclusions with respect to the evidence. 
                                                 
2 Detweiler v. Pena, 38 F.3d 591, 598 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (holding that section 205 of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ 
Civil Relief Act of 1940 “tolls the BCMR’s limitations period during a servicemember’s period of active 
duty”). 
3 Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. 
Cl. 1979); see 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b).  
4 See CGBCMR Docket No. 2000-194. 
5 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b).  In determining the preponderance of the evidence, the Board continues to consider 
the  evidentiary  weight  of  the  rating  chain’s  assessment  even  though  the  presumption  of  regularity  has 
been rebutted.  See Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 n.10 (1981). 
6  Hary v. United States, 618 F.2d 704, 708 (Cl. Ct. 1980); CGBCMR Docket No. 86-96. 

4. 

 
 
The applicant argued that the disputed OER should be removed from his 
record  because  his  CO,  the  Reporting  Officer,  delayed  completing  his  duties  with 
respect to the OER for one year even though Article 10.A.2.e.2.e. of the Personnel Man-
ual requires a Reporting Officer to submit an OER to the Reviewer no later than 30 days 
after the end of the reporting period.  The applicant argued that the delay rendered the 
OER inherently unreliable and inaccurate.  However, even a clear violation of the Per-
sonnel Manual does not justify removal of an OER unless the violation was prejudicial.7  
This Board has long held that delay per se is insufficient to justify removal of an other-
wise accurate OER.8   
 

5. 

The applicant alleged that his CO violated the Personnel Manual by fail-
ing to include a recommendation regarding promotion in block 10 of the disputed OER.  
However,  as  CGPC  pointed  out,  Article  10.A.4.c.9.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  requires 
only  that  a  Reporting  Officer  “comment  on  the  Reported-on  Officer’s  potential  for 
greater leadership roles and responsibilities in the Coast Guard.”  Block 10 of the dis-
puted OER contains several comments that speak to the applicant’s potential for greater 
responsibilities  and  leadership  roles:    “Deserving  of  his  recent  selection  to  O-5.  …  an 
effective leader. … Recommended for assignments of greater responsibility; fully quali-
fied  for  and  deserving  of  assignment  as  Executive  Officer  of  a  WMEC.”    Although  a 
Reporting Officer may comment on an officer’s “[q]ualification to assume the duties of 
the  next  grade” and many if not most OERs do contain a recommendation regarding 
promotion  in  block  10,  there  is  no  requirement  for  the  Reporting  Officer  to  make  an 
express recommendation for or against promotion.  In this regard, the Board notes that, 
contrary to the applicant’s claim, seven of his early OERs as an ensign, lieutenant junior 
grade, and lieutenant contain no recommendation for or against promotion but, instead, 
discuss his potential for assuming increased responsibility and/or his recent selection 
for promotion to the next rank. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that his CO lowered marks in the Supervisor’s sec-
tion of the disputed OER, in violation of Article 10.A.2.e.2.c. of the Personnel Manual.  
His evidence in support of this allegation consists of (a) his own opinion that the com-
ments in the Supervisor’s section would support higher marks; (b) the statement by a 
subsequent XO that the CO told him that the applicant had “showed gross disrespect to 
his commanding officer and was incompetent,” and that he had responded by suggest-
ing that the OER should reflect this opinion; and (c) the Supervisor’s belief that the CO 
assigned the applicant a lower mark on the Comparison Scale than the one he recom-
mended.  This evidence is quite inadequate to prove that the Reporting Officer lowered 
marks in the Supervisor’s section of the OER.  It does not overcome the presumption of 

6. 

                                                 
7 Hary, at 708.  
8  See,  e.g.,  CGBCMR  Docket  Nos.  2003-110;  2002-015;  43-98;  183-95  (Concurring  Decision  of  the  Deputy 
General Counsel Acting Under Delegated Authority); and 475-86. 

7. 

regularity  much  less  prove  the  alleged  impropriety.9    Moreover,  the  Supervisor  has 
submitted a statement indicating that after reviewing the final OER, he does not believe 
that  the  Reporting  Officer  changed  any  of the marks or comments he assigned in the 
Supervisor’s section.  The Supervisor also indicated that he believes that the Reporting 
Officer accepted all of his recommendations for marks and comments in the Reporting 
Officer’s section of the OER with the exception of the Comparison Scale mark, which, in 
accordance with Article 10.A.4.c.8.a. of the Personnel Manual, is an inherently subjec-
tive mark to be assigned at the discretion of the Reporting Officer. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that the disputed OER should be removed from his 
record  because  it  provides  an  inaccurately  low  assessment  of  his  performance.    As 
evidence,  he  pointed  to  alleged  inconsistencies  between  the  marks  and  comments  in 
disputed  the  OER;  to  other,  much  better  OERs  in  his  record;  and  to  inconsistencies 
between varying descriptions of his performance in the XO’s and CO’s statements and 
in  the  OER.    Regarding  the  allegations  of  inconsistency  between  the  marks  and  the 
comments in the disputed OER, the Board agrees with the XO that the comments are 
not so superlative that they are inconsistent with the marks of 4 and 5 in the OER given 
the  written  standards  for  those marks on the OER form.  The OER does have signifi-
cantly lower marks on average and on the Comparison Scale than the applicant’s prior 
OERs  as  a  lieutenant  commander  and  later  OERs  as  a  commander.    However,  as  the 
JAG  argued,  the  fact  that  an  officer  has  “had  better  ratings  before  and  after  the  chal-
lenged  OER  is  of  no  legal  moment  nor  of  probative  value  as  to  the  rating  period 
covered by the one OER with which he is dissatisfied.”10  Nor does the fact that, five 
years after the OER was completed and in response to the applicant’s accusations and 
criticism,  the  CO  has  voiced  negative  opinions  of  the  applicant’s  performance  that 
appear to contradict some of the positive comments in the OER convince the Board that 
the OER is inaccurate.  
 
 
The applicant alleged that the CO acted irrationally on several occasions, 
was a poor leader, and could not accurately assess his performance.  In support of these 
allegations, he submitted statements by the EO and EDO, who indicated that morale in 
the wardroom was low and described a few incidents in which the CO lost his temper 
for  reasons  they  thought  were  insufficient  or  nonexistent.    He  also  submitted  a  state-
ment  by  the  subsequent  XO,  who  reported  that  the  CO  once  expressed  a  very  poor 
opinion of the applicant’s performance that was not reflected in the disputed OER.  The 
Board finds that this evidence is insufficient to prove that the CO was unfit to assess the 
applicant’s performance accurately in the OER.  The Board notes that neither the EO nor 
the EDO indicated that the CO displayed any bias against the applicant.  Moreover, it is 
apparent  from  the  record  that  in  completing  the  OER,  the  CO  relied  heavily  on  the 

8. 

                                                 
9 Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. 
Cl. 1979) (holding that absent strong evidence to the contrary, Government officials are presumed to have 
performed their duties “correctly, lawfully, and in good faith”); see 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b). 
10 Grieg v. United States, 640 F.2d 1261, 1269 (Ct. Cl. 1981). 

recommendations of the XO, as he was allowed to do.11  The applicant has presented no 
evidence of any bias or unfitness on the part of the XO, who assigned the applicant the 
two  marks  of  4  in  the  performance  categories  “Looking  Out  for  Others”  and  “Work-
place Climate.” 
 

9. 

The applicant has not overcome the presumption of regularity or proved 
by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  the  disputed  OER  is  erroneous  or  unjust.  
Moreover,  the  record  indicates  that  the  delay  in  the  submission  of  the  OER  did  not 
cause his record to be incomplete while under review by any board or panel.  Therefore, 
the  Board  finds  that  his  CO’s  excessive  delay  and  failure  to  complete and submit the 
OER to CGPC in accordance with the timeline provided in the Personnel Manual has 
not  prejudiced  his  career  and  so  constitutes  harmless  error.    The  applicant  has  not 
shown that the CO’s delay was a prejudicial violation of Article 10.A.2.e.2.e. of the Per-
sonnel Manual. 
 
 

10.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 
 

                                                 
11 Personnel Manual, Art. 10.A.4.c.7.d. 

 

ORDER 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

  
 
 

 
 
military record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Elizabeth F. Buchanan 

 

 

 

 
 
 Donald A. Pedersen 

 

 

 
  Darren S. Wall