DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
BCMR Docket No. 2006-003
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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 it on October 7, 2005, 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 July 21, 2006, is signed by the three duly appointed
APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record by removing a derogatory
special officer evaluation report (SOER)1 he received for the period May 1 to September
22, 2004, when he was serving as a Deputy Group Commander on Xxxxxxxx. The
Group Commander, his commanding officer (CO) had him removed from his duties as
Deputy Group Commander on September 22, 2004. The CO served as both the appli-
cant’s supervisor and reporting officer for the SOER.2
The applicant alleged that the SOER “contains inaccuracies, inconsistencies, par-
tial and false statements, negative exaggerations, and a lack of performance trend data.”
He alleged that the SOER was prepared due to “professional differences” in leadership
styles and that the comments in the SOER are either unfounded or unrepresentative of
1 Coast Guard officers are evaluated in a variety of performance categories on a scale of 1 to 7, with 7
being best. A mark of 1 in any category makes an OER “derogatory,” and entitles the reported-on officer
to attach an addendum. Article 10.A.3.c.1.a. of the Personnel Manual allows a command to prepare an
SOER to document performance that is notably different from the officer’s prior performance.
2 An officer’s rating chain normally consists of three members: supervisor, reporting officer, and
reviewer. However, if a unit CO is an officer’s direct supervisor, the CO may serve as both supervisor
and reporting officer.
his overall performance and had no impact on the Group’s operations. He submitted
survey charts showing that Group members’ opinions of many aspects of their work
improved between 2002 and 2004. The applicant’s more specific allegations appear
below.
SUMMARY OF THE RECORD
On November 16, 1987, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard, having previ-
ously served in the Army for two years. He attended Office Candidate School and on
February 22, 1992, was appointed an ensign in the Coast Guard Reserve. He began
serving on an extended active duty contract at the Headquarters Logistics Management
Division. On August 22, 1992, he was promoted to lieutenant junior grade.
From June 21, 1993, through June 6, 1996, the applicant served at a Group as,
serially, the Administration and Supply Officer, the Special Operations Officer, the Law
Enforcement Officer, and finally the Assistant Operations Officer. He received very
high marks (primarily marks of 6) on the OERs he received from this Group command,
was rated an “exceptional officer” in the sixth spot on the comparison scale, and was
strongly recommended for promotion. On April 3, 1995, the applicant was integrated
into the regular Coast Guard. On August 22, 1995, he was promoted to lieutenant. On
his final OER at this Group, dated June 6, 1996, the Deputy Group Commander wrote
that the applicant “is a superb junior officer whom I trust implicitly to do any job.”
From June 7, 1996, through May 31, 2000, the applicant served as a quality per-
formance consultant, ensuring that field units implemented leadership and manage-
ment models and advising and training them about work performance and workplace
climate. He received very high marks on his OERs in this position and was strongly
recommended for accelerated promotion. On three of these OERs, a Rear Admiral who
served as the OER reviewer added a page of comments to the OER seconding the
reporting officer’s assessment of the applicant. The words used to describe the appli-
cant in these OERs include “visionary,” “innovator,” “leadership laureate,” “contagious
can-do spirit,” “mature,” “instant rapport with [diverse] people,” “exuding goodwill
and diplomacy,” “self-disciplined,” “self-sufficient,” “mission-oriented,” “efficiency
lauded by all,” “on the top of the performance charts,” “excelled in a job that would
have frustrated less capable people,” and “capable of getting positive results in a wide
range of operational and managerial areas.”
From June 2000 to June 2002, the applicant served as the commanding officer of a
training center. On the two OERs he received in this position, he was assigned very
high marks and strongly recommended for promotion. The written comments com-
mend him for “superlative planning and use of resources” and “outstanding results”
and describe him as “ever progressing and improving” and “extremely well qualified
for command cadre ashore positions.” The applicant was promoted to lieutenant com-
mander on August 1, 2001.
On June 17, 2002, the applicant began serving as the Deputy Group Commander
for a Group on Xxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxx. As such, he was second in command at a Group
with xxx active duty members and xx reservists serving at xx search and rescue (SAR)
stations, an aids to navigation team (ANT), a patrol boat, and xxxx smaller boats, as
well as the Group staff. As Deputy Group Commander, the applicant was the Group
Executive Officer (XO), and served as the primary human resource manager for the
Group staff, and secondary human resource manager for the subordinate units, the
Safety Officer, the Medical Officer, the Mutual Assistance Representative, the “mayor”
of the Coast Guard housing, and the chair of the various training and awards boards.
On his OER dated April 30, 2003, the applicant received two marks of 5, fifteen
marks of 6, one mark of 7 (for “Looking Out for Others”), and a mark of “excellent per-
former; give toughest, most challenging leadership assignments” in the fifth spot on the
comparison scale. The Group Commander recommended the applicant for promotion
and wrote that he “influences others, maintains high expectations, performance & mis-
sion-focused results & is also a natural catalyst for the integrity-based decisions of
crewmbrs. HR specialist, systems thinker, & professional relationship builder.”
Strategic thinker; developed holistic contingencies to respond to Hurricane xxx; incor-
porated lessons learned into updated hurricane plan. Ensured base, units & housing resi-
dents had backup energy … . Key player in [the District’s] efforts to align GPs & MSOs
into Sector Commands … Used available resources when responding to [anthrax, lead,
and asbestos problems]. Despite major changeover in sr. personnel, required very little
guidance to ensure GP support met needs of subunits; corporate knowledge alleviated
potential mistakes; used green/amber/red … model to measure GP’s subunit satisfaction
levels w/ med, admin, & supply shops; feedback used to alleviate short-comings. Pro-
vided sound input into operations; ensured aids position was verified after commercial
vsl grounding … Skillfully adapted [to] SAR cases, …, etc. Demonstrated superior exper-
tise re personnel issues; acted as sounding brd for COs/OICs/XPOs; tightened relation-
ships. … Provided crewmembers chance to give training. …
Leadership autodidact; conducted 2 leadership self-assessments; measurable results fm
360-degree analysis showed “effective, self-actualizing leader” w/ followers having
On his OER dated July 31, 2003, the outgoing Group Commander assigned the
applicant one mark of 5, thirteen marks of 6, four marks of 7 (for “Planning and Prepar-
edness,” “Results/Effectiveness,” “Looking Out for Others,” and “Responsibility”) and
a mark in the fifth spot on the comparison scale. He also strongly recommended the
applicant for promotion and for a Group Commander assignment.
On his OER date April 30, 2004, the new Group Commander (CO), who like the
prior Group Commander served as both supervisor and reporting officer, assigned the
applicant two marks of 4 (for “Planning and Preparedness” and “Initiative”), eight
marks of 5, five marks of 6, three marks of 7 (for “Looking Out for Others,” “Workplace
Climate,” and “Health and Well-Being”), and a mark in the fifth spot on the comparison
scale. The CO also included the following comments to support the marks:
“high level of satisfaction & high productivity”; ID’d areas for improvement (AFIs) under
transformational leadership characteristics; linked AFIs to specific unit needs. 2nd assess-
ment described leader w/ “idealized influence” over subordinates’ “trust, faith &
respect” who is “role model”; assessments suprted by visible relationship w/ crew, team-
work & workplace climate; vision reinforced during mbr inbriefs. Treated mistakes as
learning opportunities; led to development & continuous performance improvements;
prepared mbrs for future success. Took swift, appropriate action after housing residents
voiced concern re suspected pedophile; maintained privacy, dignity of mbr; defused situ-
ation discreetly. Interactions w/ 2 estranged spouses objectively guided by policy; issues
resolved IAW regs. … Interviewed mbr w/ +cocaine urinalysis; uncovered more poten-
tial users; launched CGIS investigation; led to 4 discharges. Accessible XO w/ sought-
after perspective; counseled jr mbrs. Evals well-supported by 1st-hand knowledge of per-
formance/potential.
I continue to be impressed by [the applicant’s] insightful human resource skills & the
professional relationship that has naturally emerged w/ the crew. The initiative to con-
duct a self-assessment of leadership skills is merely one aspect of [his] drive to under-
stand personal & position power & the resulting effects of a leader’s actions. An officer
w/ a positive outlook & an effervescent spirit, [the applicant] not only has a finger on the
pulse of the GP, but also knows when & how to regulate that pulse. …
Provided diversity mngmnt to crew; well-rcvd as “best trng”; initiated “Ready for
Admin” (RFA) prgm to prep units for upcoming MLC compliance visit; ID’d shortcom-
ings in time to alleviate gigs. Worked w/ cmd sr. chief to formalize Employee Problem
Informal Review Board (EPIRB) into a Chief’s Council; added leadership option to
address crew issues. Turned 4910 charges into a plan to help mbr w/ indebtedness; mbr
back on career path w/ clean record. Took appropriate steps when mbr blew a .096
breathalizer … Worked w/ subunits to alleviate perf. problems in operational arena;
admin assigned mbrs to GP for discharge processing or perf. turnaround; worked closely
w/ D1(d1) to ensure all avenues were considered. Conducted investigation into mbr’s
phenobarbital + urinalysis … Solved issue re community use of gov’t water at housing;
created good neighbor environment while maintaining high ethical standards of self &
F&S dept head. … Fitness champion; ran routinely …
Qualified as Group Commander; Acted as CO for 38 days; Met all requirements w/ pro-
fessional sound judgment. Previous Boat Forces experience combined w/ prior consult-
ant work w/ D8 [Marine Safety Offices] make [the applicant] a qualified trailblazer to
serve in a senior cmd billet at a sector. [He] has reapplied for the USMC Cmd/Staff Col-
lege; As the first alternate 3 years ago & based on continued performance, [the applicant]
rates & is highly recommended for selection. Highly recommended for jobs that require
an expertise in HR and/or leadership, based on practical leadership experience and on-
going doctoral studies. Recommended for Group Commander and promotion to O-5.
The CO counseled the applicant about this OER and about his expectations of the
applicant. The CO’s written “OER Feedback” concerning the applicant’s strengths and
weaknesses cited areas in which the CO wanted the applicant to improve, including
updating the CO regularly about the status of projects; tracking work, awards, and per-
sonnel issues; and “demonstrat[ing] greater operational involvement” by “making sub-
stantial progress toward your boat forces pin,” “participat[ing] in the RFO program,”
“getting underway with our units on a periodic (monthly) basis,” and “participat[ing]
in wet drills.”
On May 19, 2004, the CO provided the applicant with another detailed list of
expectations concerning how he should relate to and represent the CO; display leader-
ship; maintain a calendar of events; process awards and arrange award presentations;
handle personnel matters; and inspect materiel and resolve discrepancies, including
twelve “immediate” maintenance projects on the Group’s property, such as washing
windows, replacing carpet, trimming hedges, and clearing and straightening storage
space, to be done before the CO’s materiel inspection on June 16, 2004.
After the CO took a week of leave from June 28 to July 2, 2004, he gave the appli-
cant a page of written feedback about work that was not accomplished or was inade-
quately planned or performed during his absence.
On August 13, 2004, the CO wrote a letter to the applicant, stating the following:
[Y]ou still have a ways to go to meet my expectations. … If your performance improves,
you can continue on in the job and have prospects for a bright future. If your perform-
ance does not improve, I may be in the unfortunate position of having to write a special
OER and to revoke my recommendations for post-graduate programs, command, and
promotion. As it stands right now, I cannot recommend you for any one of those three.
In a worst case scenario, I may be forced to relieve you of your duties as deputy group
commander. Although I am not presently satisfied with the quality of your work, I still
have confidence that you can perform the job in a way that will meet my expectations. I
encourage you to continue to make improvements in initiative, decisiveness (directing
others), planning, and the overall thoroughness of your work.
Following “feedback sessions” between the applicant and the CO on August 13,
19, and 30, and September 7 and 13, 2004, the CO gave the applicant short lists of
“things that went well” and long lists of “things that did not go well.” The applicant
submitted written responses to several items on the CO’s lists. For example,
• The CO complained that a letter regarding a member’s discharge did not indicate
whether he had submitted a statement or waived his right to do so. The applicant
responded that the member had submitted an incomplete statement and that “[t]he
letter was for your signature, so if you needed that statement put in, it was an easy fix,
not a performance issue.”
• The CO complained that the applicant had asked him to sign a letter verifying
that an inventory had been conducted without showing him documentation of the
inventory. The applicant responded that he was “used to working in an environment
where my character is trusted, and I trust my department heads … But again, if you
wanted to see the inventory, it was an administrative issue, not a performance issue.
• The CO complained that he had to call the applicant at home one evening to find
out whether the CO or the applicant would be attending a Sector meeting. The appli-
cant responded that the CO had left the office first and left before the applicant received
the answer to that question from the District. When the CO called him, the applicant
told him he had nothing to report because the District did not respond to their query
until Thursday.
• The CO complained that a form was missing from an award recommendation.
The applicant responded that at the time, the form “was on its way over” from the
member’s subunit.
• The CO complained that he saw a message from the District Chief of Staff
requiring an EEO report by September 1, 2004, and that the CO did not know if anyone
was taking action on the report. The applicant responded that the “CRO had it for
action, and we met the deadline.”
• The CO complained that he had not been briefed about a member being dis-
charged due to his second alcohol-related incident. The applicant stated that the CO
was misinformed because the member had not had a second “alcohol incident” and was
not being discharged. Therefore, “there was nothing to brief you on re this (non)inci-
dent.”
• The CO complained that the Group still had no ball caps although they had run
out more than five weeks previously. The applicant responded that the Morale Officer
had not alerted him and that he had ensured that new ball caps were ordered as soon as
he discovered the problem. Moreover, the applicant stated that a ball cap is only a
token and that his staff used other ways to “incorporate new members into the fold.”
• The CO complained that he had not been briefed about something on the calen-
dar. The applicant responded that this complaint contradicted a prior statement by the
CO that he had been briefed.
• The CO complained that a FedEx package for an administrative investigation
into a mishap did not contain finalized radio logs, as the applicant had promised the
investigator. The applicant responded that the oversight had been corrected by the
Operations Division.
• The CO complained that, two months earlier, he had asked the applicant to
mediate a conflict between two subordinate officers and that the applicant had delayed
doing so until the CO reminded him in writing. The applicant responded that he had
“engaged” both officers promptly but that their operational and annual leave schedules
had not permitted them to meet together for mediation for several weeks. The appli-
cant stated that the CO’s written reminder had not affected the timing of the mediation.
• The CO complained that neither he nor the Engineering Officer knew about the
conflict until they read a monthly report. The applicant stated that the situation was
handled at a lower level and was properly communicated to the CO through the
monthly report.
• The CO complained that when he returned from a week’s leave, the applicant
did not present him with a list of things that had occurred in his absence “as almost
anyone would do for his boss.” The applicant responded that the CO had been absent
for 58 days during the prior year and had never yet requested such a list. Instead, there
was a “staff brief” the morning the CO returned and the applicant and each department
head orally briefed the CO.
• The CO complained that before going on a week of leave, he gave the applicant a
list of questions and concerns but that the applicant did not respond until four days
after the CO returned. The applicant responded that their “scheduled status update”
had been delayed from Tuesday to Thursday due to the CO’s own busy schedule upon
returning from leave and that Thursday was the “earliest break in the catch-up
schedule.” The applicant stated that if the CO had requested an earlier briefing, the
applicant would have provided one.
• The CO complained that although before he left he had prepared a comprehen-
sive list of things that needed to be done concerning a certain seaman, he had received
no update upon his return. The applicant responded that that seaman’s situation was
being handled by the subunit chain of command and that the applicant did “not expect
my Commanding Officer to doubt the effectiveness of the chain of command in hand-
ling an E3’s performance issues, and therefore did not provide you, or think you expect-
ed, an update.”
• The CO complained that planning for the Coast Guard Day picnic had only
begun after the CO reminded the applicant and just two days before the event. The
applicant responded that planning had begun three months early.
• The CO complained that after asking the applicant to make repairs of obvious
materiel discrepancies a top priority and mentioned the lack of “non-skid” on some
steps, the steps were not fixed during the week and the CO was embarrassed when his
supervisor noted the condition of the step when she visited the following week. The
applicant responded that there was a “manpower issue,” that the non-skid had been
removed because the step had been repaired and needed to be painted.
• The CO complained that although they had two months’ warning of the depar-
ture of an ensign, there was no one qualified to fill his duties as EKMS alternate. The
applicant responded that he and the Operations Officer “had this under control with a
plan to get the EKMS alternate identified well before [the ensign’s] departure.” The
applicant stated that “it appears as if your negative opinion of me and my abilities
preempted a discussion that would have alleviated your concern not only in the hand-
ling of a personnel issue, but in my personal ability to handle my responsibilities.”
• The CO complained that the applicant botched a drug-use investigation by fail-
ing to read a member his rights “even though [the applicant] suspected [the member] of
a UCMJ offense. The applicant stated that he did not suspect the member of anything
but, with a witness present, was merely counseling a member “who was having prob-
lems at home,” when the member “confessed … that he had a positive drug urinalysis.”
The applicant had the member clarify what he had said and then stopped the interview.
• The CO complained that the applicant had not included a retirement party that
was mandatory for all hands on a “plan of the week.” The applicant stated that he did
include it but that the person who wrote up the plan overlooked it.
From September 14 to 16, 2004, the Maintenance and Logistics Command con-
ducted an Administrative and Financial Compliance Inspection at the Group for the
first time in five years. The Group’s financial, administrative, and personnel programs
were found to be satisfactory. The inspector reported that no follow-up reports were
required because the Group’s “evaluation in each area was satisfactory or better and
you are compliant in all areas.” The inspector also noted that the morale account was
not ready for inspection because the newly appointed (September 8) Morale Officer was
away due to operational commitments and had not had time to prepare for inspection.
On September 22, 2004, the CO removed the applicant from his position. To
document this event, the CO prepared the SOER as follows:
MARKS AND COMMENTS IN DISPUTED SOER
(The bold numbers inserted in the text refer to correspondingly lettered allegations and supporting evidence below.)
#
CATEGORY
3a Planning and
Preparedness
MARK WRITTEN COMMENTS
3
3b Using
Resources
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
4
3
3
4
5
5
5
5
4
4
6
3
8a
Initiative
8b
Judgment
8c Responsibility
8d Professional
Presence
8e Health & Well-
Being
3
4
4
5
6
Weak planning/preparedness: [1] despite frequent prompting, did not initiate tickler for tracking
assignment/due dates, resulting in missed deadlines (late OERs, evals, hurricane plan, train-
ing); [2] instituted command calendar, worklist, personnel tracking system, awards tracking,
only after supervisor directed/provided model; [3] virtually unresponsive to materiel dis-
crepancies: [4] 1 yr to complete fitness trail, [5] 2 fences falling down, weeds, painting, dilapi-
dated floating docks; [6] not prepared for quarters—left mess for EO, resulting in EO/CO
embarrassment in front of crew; [7] MLC Compliance criticized urinalysis program for lack of
year-round testing; [8] no one available to present morale account to inspectors, resulting in
lenient “not ready for inspection” result; [9] ill-prepared for transfer season (no unit ball caps, no
plan for comms watch rotation, last minute/ late awards), [10] no plan developed for departure
of LTJG (EKMS relief, morale); [11] released “possible compromise” message without briefing
CO. [12] Failed to adapt/ respond: in midst of difficult fatality case/mishap, relieved as
President, Local MAB (failed to pull radio tapes, develop inventory, or provide investigator with
comprehensive evidence package); [13] even after red-flag warning by admin officer for morale
1 month in advance, account in poor shape for MLC inspector; [14] neglected to pass written MI
discrepancies from CO to department heads; [15] unresponsive to clear guidance by CO after
frequent oral & written feedback.
Entertaining speaker w/ keen, multi-layered sense of humor; addressed issues facing unit COs/
OICs; advice was clear/supportive of policy/well-rcvd; w/ short notice, cancelled his leave &
presided over BM1 retirement ceremony; speech was lauded by mbr, family, guests. Drafted
endorsements, memos, ltrs; edited awrds; used measures system for 3-wk period that revealed
96% signature-ready rate on documents; drafted STA change of cmd speech for CO; e-mails;
helped subordinates tailor correspondence (flt school/OCS requests); edited SRO’s war college
application.
Focused inbrief msg on mbr ownership & development; attended trng sessions w/ crew; demon-
strated commitment to unit’s work climate; challenged officers w/ transactional leadership styles
to be more inspirational than directive; w/out imposing will, demonstrated skills as coach.
Separated person fm performance; counseled mbrs on personal & professional issues;
supported personal needs of 2 mbrs facing courts martial; maintained mbrs’ dignity; effort kept
both engaged in daily work; worked with ISC to get mbr a domestic violence assessment.
Teamed w/ YNCS & YN1 to help F&S w/ contracting background acclimate to admin supervi-
sory duties, CWO showed exponential growth in admin world of work. Worked w/ two
estranged spouses after a/d mbr admitted to adultery; ensured child support req’s were met;
ensured extra duty/ restriction was executed. Helped STA process mbr for discharge after
admitting to bisexual activities; ensured mbr got legal counseling re admin discharge brd. Took
fast, appropriate steps to work w/ unit cmds; processed personnel issues (alcohol,
performance, police charges, drug incidents, etc); policy-guided; description of Group as
“support unit” appreciated by unit cmd cadres. [16] OER’s submitted in good quality, but some
late due to poor tracking; [17] enlisted evals accurate, requiring minor changes, but Group staff
E-6 marks 45 days late.
[18] [The applicant] has been passively stubborn in not adjusting to or meeting my expectations
for my Deputy Group Commander. [19] Despite frequent and forthright feedback (both oral and
written), [he] has been slow or unresponsive to tasking, deadlines, and expectations. [20] He is
good at responding to crises, but not at planning to prevent them, turning normal military events
into fires to put out (awards, personnel transfers, reports, evaluations, District Commander
visit). [21] Chooses “inspirational” leadership model, but lacks ability to adapt where it falls
short.
[22] Lacked initiative/career development: [23] did not set foot on a CG boat during entire
reporting period; [24] did not participate in Ready for OPS (RFO)/STAN visits; [25] took no
steps to develop plan for himself or subordinates to earn boat forces pin; [26] took no remedial
area familiarization action when, as acting CDO, did not know location of Xxxx xxxx (xxx Group
is located on); [27] failed to flag important message traffic while CO on leave (COMDT Sector
impl., D1(dcs)). At times, demonstrated sound judgment: acting CO for 20 days (18 during
busy SAR season) while CO TAD/leave; acting CDO 5 days; worked w/ GDOs to ensure cases
ran smoothly; responded well to complicated family case at housing; formal actions ensured
mbrs’ safety/accountability; de-escalated spouse’s anger w/ calm demeanor; worked w/ family
advocate to defuse/rectify source of family disturbance. Always looked good in uniform,
established “best boot Tuesday,” inspiring members to polish boots; [28] sponsored fancy work
contest; rendered proper military courtesies. Excellent physical shape; regular distance runner;
rated excellent in physical fitness assessment; planned physical fitness assessment for entire
Group staff to encourage overall well-being.
6
7
Signed by the CO on September 22, 2004, as supervisor
Reporting
Officer’s
Comments
NA
9
Comparison
Scale
1
[Performance unsatisfactory for grade or billet.]
10 Potential
NA
[29] While he was successful as the personnel officer in many respects, he failed to grasp the
breadth of his duties as the Deputy Group Commander, falling short on operational matters,
accountability, and unit planning. [30] As a result, I can only recommend him for administrative
positions. [31] He possesses an extensive educational background and concern for junior
members that should be considered in the assignment process. With enhanced dedication and
an opportunity to perform in a non-operational assignment, he has the potential to earn a rec-
ommendation for promotion to O-5 at a later time.
11 Signature of the CO dated September 22, 2004, as reporting officer
12 Signature of the Chief of the District Search and Rescue Branch dated September 28, 2004, as reviewer
Because the OER was derogatory, the applicant was entitled to submit an adden-
dum. He wrote simply, “I stand by my record, my experience, my understanding of
leadership, my reputation, and my adherence to the organization’s emphasis on peo-
ple.” This addendum was forwarded by the rating chain without comment.
On October 22, 2004, the applicant submitted an OER Reply in which he alleged
that the CO provided no “command vision” and may not have understood his “trans-
formational leadership approach [which] is not understood or readily accepted in tradi-
tional (transactional) units, but it is tactically based on the Commandant’s diversity
policy and its support of ‘people first’ initiatives to maintain retention while balancing
work life.” The applicant alleged that it was “a personality-driven evaluation conduct-
ed in a transactional, throw-back environment that allowed [him] to go from ‘Qualified
as Group Commander’ to not being recommended for graduate school or promotion in
145 days.” He pointed out that during the evaluation period, he was a “doctoral stu-
dent in organizational development, but [he] ‘did not set foot on a CG boat,’ so [the CO
wrote that he] ‘lacked initiative/career development.’”
On October 29, 2004, the CO forwarded the OER Reply to the reviewer. The CO
wrote that the SOER was not “personality-driven” and “was based solely on perform-
ance.”
On November 10, 2004, the reviewer forwarded the OER Reply to the Coast
Guard Personnel Command (CGPC). He noted that the applicant had submitted a
memorandum requesting redress against his CO under Article 138 of the UCMJ but that
it was returned to him because he had not first sought redress directly from the CO and
because the “redress of an OER is not cognizable under Article 138.” The reviewer fur-
ther stated that he was “confident that the [SOER] was based solely on observed per-
formance.”
On November 22, 2004, CGPC rejected the applicant’s OER Reply because of the
comments concerning interpersonal relationships and his opinion of the abilities or
qualities of the CO, which are not permitted in an OER Reply under Article 10.A.4.g.2.
of the Personnel Manual.
VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On December 1, 2004, the applicant submitted a revised OER Reply with a
bulleted list of 36 projects or tasks he had completed or contributed to during the evalu-
ation period. Most of those listed are included with his allegations summarized below.
On December 21, 2004, the CO forwarded the OER Reply to the reviewer, stating
that he was aware of all of the performance documented therein and took it into
account when preparing the SOER. However, he stood by the SOER. He wrote,
“Although I agree that [the applicant] performed the tasks listed in his OER Reply, I
don’t think they paint a complete picture of his performance. For example, regarding
the bullet about ‘admitted drug possession/use,’ [the applicant] neglected to read the
member his rights before questioning him, and we were unable to use his confession for
a discharge. The member remains on active duty at this time.”
On June 10, 2005, the PRRB denied the applicant’s request to have the SOER
removed from his record. The views of the PRRB are summarized with the applicant’s
allegations below.
On February 22, 2006, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard sub-
mitted an advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny the applicant’s request
for lack of merit, except to the extent of removing the SOER comment about the fancy
work contest.
The JAG argued that the applicant failed to submit “clear and convincing evi-
dence to overcome the presumption of regularity afforded rating officials.” The JAG
also argued that the record before the Board “clearly establishes that the [SOER] was
properly prepared in accordance with the Personnel Manual; that it represents the hon-
est professional judgment of the group commander; and that it accurately reflects
Applicant’s actual performance during the period of the report.” The JAG attached to
and adopted as part of his advisory opinion a memorandum on the case prepared by
the Coast Guard Personnel Command. CGPC argued that each of the disputed com-
ments, except the date of the fancy work contest, are supported in the record. CGPC’s
findings regarding specific disputed comments are summarized below with the appli-
cant’s specific allegations.
Regarding the applicant’s allegations about professional differences and leader-
ship styles, CGPC stated that transformational leaders typically have great passion and
confidence but sometimes “passionately lead their followers to ruin” and are “apt to
spend most of their energy and attention selling the big picture while overlooking man-
agement of the details.” CGPC stated that the applicant’s
stubborn insistence that his own leadership style was the far more superior style and/or
more successful way to lead the unit was not convincing. The Applicant’s opinions on
leadership styles are trivial compared to the inescapable fact that Commanding Officers
are uniquely qualified for command, are hand-selected by higher authority, and are the
sole legitimate command authority. Executive Officers are bound by CG Regulations to
implement the CO’s vision in the most effective manner, not to supplant it with their own
vision. Furthermore, Applicant’s supporting documentation and numerous admissions
paint a credible picture of deliberate discord on the part of the Applicant towards the
Group Commander’s leadership. It is clear that professional differences existed between
the Applicant and the Group Commander, but mostly (if not solely) due to misplaced
leadership arrogance on the part of the Applicant.
APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On March 20, 2006, the applicant responded to the views of the Coast Guard.
The applicant objected to CGPC’s “tirade explaining leadership styles” as it was flawed
in several respects and did not focus on his actual performance. The applicant argued
that he could not implement the CO’s “vision” because the CO had not provided one.
Therefore, he continued “perpetuating the vision of reciprocal leadership and owner-
ship among the crew,” for which the CO had praised him in his prior OER. The appli-
cant stated that to his own misfortune, the CO “measured all others by his own model,
… did not make his expectations clear for the first ten months of his tour, and … never
formulated a vision for his command.”
The applicant stated that he understood that the CO had an “absolute right to
ask for things to be done differently, and by all evidence I incorporated those changes
(tickler files).” However, within 145 days, the CO was busy creating a “paper trail.”
The applicant alleged that “nowhere in that paper trail are there redundancies. In other
words, there was never a defined deficiency that had to be corrected more than once.”
Therefore, he argued, the CO was documenting mere “one-time events” with no
adverse impacts simply because he was personally affronted that the applicant had
deviated from the way the CO would have handled a particular task.
SUMMARIES OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS ABOUT SOER COMMENTS
The following summaries group (a) the applicant’s evidence and allegations con-
cerning each of the negative comments in the disputed OER with (b) any statements by
the CO or reviewer regarding disputed comments, (c) the findings of and statements
considered by the PRRB, (d) the opinions of CGPC in the advisory opinion, and (e) the
applicant’s responses.
COMMENT [1]: “despite frequent prompting, did not initiate tickler for tracking
assignment/due dates, resulting in missed deadlines (late OERs, evals, hurricane
plan, training)”
Applicant’s Arguments
The applicant alleged that “he did not miss deadlines because of weak planning.”
He stated that he “used the Coast Guard Personnel Manual which clearly outlines a
‘tickler’ for on-time submission for OERs and evaluations. … I used the tickler already
provided by the organization thus reducing redundancy.” Moreover, the applicant
stated, the Group’s OER initial and due dates were included on the Group Worklist,
which was generated in response to the CO’s request. He provided a copy of the Group
Worklist dated September September 17, 2004, which shows OER entries with initial
and due dates included. He also alleged that there had been a 100% turnover on the
administrative staff, and the new staff had to “come up to speed.”
The applicant stated that he had three “direct reports,” and of those officer’s
OERs, he signed only one late and its delay was not due to lack of a tickler list but to the
fact that it was that officer’s first OER, and the applicant had to help him document his
performance. Moreover, he stated, the CO himself signed all three of the OERs late.
Therefore, he argued, his CO arbitrarily held the applicant to a higher standard than the
standard to which he held himself, in violation of Article 138 of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ).
The applicant stated that all other OERs and enlisted evaluations were submitted
on time, except those of for E-6s, which were submitted late “by design.” He referred to
his arguments regarding comment [17] (below). In addition, the applicant submitted a
copy of a Coast Guard publication, which stated that in 2004 only 45% of all OERs were
submitted to CGPC timely within the 45-day deadline.
Regarding the hurricane plan, the applicant stated that there was one in place
and that it was reviewed annually upon receipt of an official hurricane message. He
stated that having a tickler would therefore have been redundant. However, in
response to “the CO’s request, a worklist was generated, and the hurricane plan was
added.” The applicant alleged that the CO slowed down review of the plan by rejecting
his suggestion that the CO review it concurrently while others reviewed it because he
“wanted everyone to see it before he did.”
The applicant stated that the Group training officer provided an annual training
plan and posted it on the bulletin board. He submitted a copy of a training schedule for
FY2004, which shows the title, date, and instructor’s name for twenty training sessions
offered at the Group throughout that fiscal year.
CO’s Arguments
The CO stated that during the evaluation period, only two of eight members of
the administrative office were transferred out and replaced. He stated that both he and
the District expected the hurricane plan to be revised prior to the season, but it was not
to
certify
the
train
and
a plan
junior officers
done. Regarding training, the CO stated that the applicant “assumed no responsibility
for developing
as
comms/controller/CDO/ boat crew/BTM/BO. He did not monitor the operations
department training, [which is] perhaps the most important training on the Group staff,
and he provided no oversight of reserve training.”
COMMENT [2]: “instituted command calendar, worklist, personnel tracking system,
awards tracking, only after supervisor directed/provided model”
The applicant alleged that this comment is analogous to “answered the phone
only after it rang” because his three prior OERs “reflect positive actions and account-
ability without having a piece of paper to track deadlines.” He stated that he generated
the lists for the CO’s use, not his own, when the CO requested them ten months after he
took command. The applicant stated that he himself had “operated successfully for two
years without these tickler systems” but that he generated the lists mentioned in this
comment in May and June 2004, when the CO asked for them, and updated them
weekly until he was removed in September. Therefore, he promptly responded to the
CO’s request during the evaluation period, and the tickler lists were in place for the
majority of the marking period. For example, “the awards tracking model was in place
in May, and 31/32 awards (97%) were delivered to the receiving members before they
departed.
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted copies of a “personnel
issues” spreadsheet, a Group Worklist, an Award Status spreadsheet, and a nine-page
materiel discrepancy list with (very few marked as “completed”), all of which the CO
authorized a Group staff member to email the applicant on December 27, 2004.
The CO stated that “after months of us failing to meet deadlines, I tasked [the
applicant] with developing and maintaining a tickler system. … He did not develop
them; I did” by providing templates.
COMMENT [3]: “virtually unresponsive to materiel discrepancies”
Applicant’s Arguments
The applicant stated that he “delegated the materiel discrepancies to the Engi-
neering Officer,” in accordance with the CO’s expectations. He stated that the Engi-
neering Officer was not unresponsive but was busy providing support for the opera-
tional units. The applicant pointed out that the evaluation period happened during the
Group’s busy SAR season and that he therefore “prioritized the discrepancy list
accordingly with plans to correct the discrepancies after the search and rescue season.”
He stated that in August 2004, the engineering staff had to perform 450 hours of
unscheduled boat maintenance, which was more important than whether a step was
painted or a hedge trimmed.
The applicant submitted a copy of the discrepancy list, generated three months
after his departure, and pointed out that all 19 of those discrepancies accounted for on
the list had been handled before his departure and that nothing had been done since his
departure. Therefore, he argued, the CO was holding him to a higher standard than he
held himself.
PRRB’s Arguments
The PRRB argued that materiel discrepancy list submitted by the applicant sup-
ports this comment because the list indicates that only 21 out of the 415 discrepancies
shown were completed.
CO’s Arguments
In his declaration for the PRRB, the CO stated that due to the lack of a materiel
discrepancy list, he had scheduled a CO’s materiel inspection, but the applicant “took
virtually no steps to prepare for that inspection. … [He] had clearly told [the applicant]
that [he] expected him to ensure the unit was ready for [him] to inspect.” “The goal
was for him to generate the list and fix/improve as many things as possible so I could
walk around and compliment the crew on their good work. Instead, the list was gener-
ated during my inspection. The [Engineering Officer] played a big part in generating
this list, partly because [the applicant’s] hands were full of trash that he was picking up
during the inspection.”
Reviewer’s Comment
In a declaration for the PRRB, the reviewer wrote that he learned from the CO
during their telephone conversations over the summer that the applicant “paid insuffi-
cient attention to detail and missed several deadlines. We specifically discussed late
enlisted evaluations and OERs, lack of ballcaps for newly arrived members, and
delayed awards. … [The CO] was typically disappointed that [the applicant] had not
adequately prepared for an awards ceremony or all hands meeting. … [The CO] was
also disappointed in the material condition of the Group and expressed his frustration
to me several times that [the applicant] was not working quickly enough to correct dis-
crepancies.” The reviewer stated that the positive comments of the District Commander
in the inspection log were simply “to raise crew morale [and] not necessarily intended
to convey the material condition of the unit.”
Applicant’s Rebuttal
The applicant submitted a statement by a member of the Group, who stated that
the Group’s materiel inspection process involved the XO inspecting one department
each week for safety and structural integrity and general cleanliness. The administra-
tive staff would prepare a list of each discrepancy found and forward the list to the
department head. Throughout the month, the XO would follow up with the depart-
ment head “to ensure the items were being rectified,” and the XO would re-inspect
those discrepancies the following month. The member stated that the XO would report
any urgent problems or safety issues to the CO.
COMMENT [4]: “1 yr to complete fitness trail”
The applicant stated that the fitness trail was completed in the summer of 2003,
before the CO’s arrival, and was used until May 2004, when it was “rearranged into a
fitness pod.” The rearrangement was delayed due to a “water line that had to be fixed”
and frozen ground that prevented digging. The applicant stated that he discussed the
matter with the CO, who agreed with his proposed layout, and alleged that it should
not be a point of criticism. He alleged that the CO first criticized the trail during his
inspection on June 16, 2004.
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted a statement signed by the
Group Corpsman, who said that in June 2003, the fitness trail ran along the Group’s
perimeter fence. In the summer of 2003, the fitness equipment was moved beside a
volleyball court, and plans were made to lay a path between the trail and the equip-
ment. However, when the stones were delivered, the delivery truck broke a water main
under the site where the path was to be, which delayed the building of the path. How-
ever, the fitness trail continued to be usable, and he himself used it several times a week
until he left the Group in May 2004.
The CO stated that he defined “finishing the trail” to include installing equip-
ment, borders, and signs; putting down gravel; and cleaning up. He wrote that the
applicant “knew [the CO] was not satisfied with the condition of the fitness trail, even if
he was.”
COMMENT [5]: “2 fences falling down, weeds, painting, dilapidated floating docks”
The applicant stated that four fence posts in all were repaired during the evalua-
tion period although they were not on the discrepancy list. In addition, he alleged,
fence rails fell down “anytime the unit dog ran under the rails.” He alleged that the
weeds were taken care of as “grounds maintenance was a steady occurrence in the
summer.” However, the weeds were on the discrepancy list because inclement weather
had prevented weed treatment during the spring. The applicant stated that the paint-
ing “was going to require funding that the Admin officer could not identify until the
end of the Fiscal Year so it was prioritized as a discrepancy to complete later.” The
dilapidated docks were not on the discrepancy list and were discovered late in the
summer. When he noted the Search and Rescue Detachment, whose docks they were,
that detachment “promptly disposed of the docks.” Finally, the applicant alleged, the
District Commander “remarked that the base was ‘well-maintained’ … during his visit”
on September 13 and 14, 2004. He submitted a copy of the District Commander’s note
in the Group’s inspection log.
COMMENT [6]: “not prepared for quarters—left mess for EO, resulting in EO/CO
embarrassment in front of crew”
The applicant alleged that he was always prepared for quarters (the weekly staff
meeting). He complained that the word “mess” is subjective. He submitted a copy of a
letter from a crewmember, who stated that on the morning awards were handed out,
everything and everyone was in place for the ceremony. In support of his allegations,
the applicant submitted a statement from a lieutenant commander, who wrote that the
applicant invited him to attend quarters at the Group on July 2, 2004, to receive a Com-
mendation Medal from the Group Commander. He arrived just five minutes before
quarters and was greeted by the CO and the applicant. The applicant had to leave to
attend a meeting in the CO’s stead so that the CO could present the awards. Therefore,
the Engineering Officer read all the award citations while the CO pinned on the medals.
The lieutenant commander stated that, “In my opinion, the entire day was well
planned, well coordinated and the Command had no reason to be embarrassed.”
The CO stated that he came to the Group while on leave to present awards and
found that the applicant was not prepared to conduct quarters and “with only five
minutes notice he dumped the presentations on the [Engineering Officer].” The appli-
cant had known about the routine teleconference well in advance but made no prior
arrangements to have someone else conduct quarters. The applicant asked the CO, who
had come in just to present the awards, if he wanted to handle the teleconference
instead. In addition, there was no inscription at all on a plaque intended as the Sailor of
the Quarter award.
The CO alleged that “on numerous occasions, quarters did not go smoothly.
New members would be in the audience and we would be surprised by that fact and
would have no ballcap to present. We would have awards to present that weren’t
mounted for presentation, didn’t have “o” devices attached, and were not engraved. In
addition, we had no Officers Call so no one knew what anyone was going to [say].”
In rebuttal, the applicant alleged that the “CO came in off leave with what was
evidently an unrealistic expectation of quarters.” He alleged that he was prepared for
both quarters and the teleconference but the CO, who came in because of the large
number of awards being presented, was not prepared to conduct quarters. The appli-
cant also stated that he personally put the “o” devices on the awards.
COMMENT [7]: “MLC Compliance criticized urinalysis program for lack of year-
round testing”
The applicant alleged that the verbal outbrief was not more critical than the writ-
The applicant submitted the MLC Inspection Report, which contains a recom-
mendation that the Group conduct one-quarter of its annual allotment of urinalysis
testing each quarter of the fiscal year. The applicant also submitted a copy of an email
showing that the Group’s urinalysis program met 131% of its goal in FY2004, up from
119% the year before, even though they had no health services technician until late June.
The applicant argued that the CO chose to take the recommendation as criticism.
The CO stated that in the fall of 2003, a few crewmembers had tested positive for
drug use so he “tasked [the applicant] with pursuing the urinalysis program aggres-
sively.” He stated that this SOER comment was based on the MLC Compliance team’s
verbal outbrief on the urinalysis program, which was more critical than the final report,
which recommended spreading out urinalyses as only a recommendation. The report
showed that the Group’s urinalyses had been “crammed” prior to the inspection as 42%
of the samples were collected during the month before, while during the prior five
months, only three samples had been collected.
ten report.
COMMENT [8]: “no one available to present morale account to inspectors, resulting
in lenient ‘not ready for inspection’ result”
The applicant stated that at the time of the inspection, the morale officer was
attending very important training out of state and could not present the paperwork.
The applicant stated that “[a]dmittedly, there had been shortfalls in the morale account,
but the morale officer relief had been conducted and the paperwork and the account
funds were all in order.” He submitted copies of the paperwork. Although the Group’s
Administrative Officer was ready to present that paperwork, because of the morale offi-
cer’s absence, the inspector “decided it was more efficient to give a ‘not ready for
inspection due to operational commitments’” rating. The applicant stated that the CO
“had received three briefs on the shortcomings of the morale account” and that five of
the documents the inspector could not locate were on the CO’s desk awaiting his signa-
ture.
The CO stated that the applicant had been XO for two and one-half years at the
time of the MLC inspection and that the records were in such poor shape that the
inspector could not “make sense of them.” The CO stated that there “was no account-
ing of funds coming from the coffee machine” and “no budgetary breakdown by unit,
allowing the Group staff to spend money that rightfully belonged to our subordinate
units.” In addition, the morale officer had “bounced a check” written to a subordinate
unit. The CO stated that if morale-related paperwork was in his in-box during the
inspection, the applicant should have asked him to sign the paperwork before the
inspection.
The PRRB argued that the MLC Compliance Inspection Report verified this
comment.
COMMENT [9]: “ill-prepared for transfer season (no unit ball caps, no plan for
comms watch rotation, last minute/ late awards)”
The applicant stated that during the transfer season, he was “fully engaged” and
worked with the Operations Officer “to ensure departmental manpower shortages were
addressed.” In addition, he “monitored situation and worked w/ OS assignment offi-
cer to consider all possible resources” and “to ensure we got relief as timely as possi-
ble.” Regarding the awards, the applicant stated that he personally processed 32
awards for departing staff and that 31 were delivered before the staff members left the
Group. Only one had to be mailed to the member’s new unit. The applicant alleged
that such mailings are so common that he did not even consider criticizing the person
from one of the Group’s subordinate units who submitted the award late. Regarding
the ball caps, the applicant stated that the Coast Guard Exchange System had ball caps
that referred to their unit as “Station Xxxxxxxx,” rather than “Group Xxxxxxxx,” even
though there is no “Station Xxxxxxxx.” As soon as he learned of the problem, he
ensured ballcaps were ordered and “by September every new member had a new cap
and there were twelve more in stock.” He submitted an email from second class petty
officer regarding the problem with the Exchange.
The CO stated that the applicant’s planning was inadequate. The ballcaps were
delayed and there was “no planning for going-away get-togethers.” In addition, there
were “last minute awards (a couple signed within 15 minutes of presentation).”
COMMENT [10]: “no plan developed for departure of LTJG (EKMS relief,
The PRRB argued that the documentation of the “feedback sessions” shows that
the CO “had provided clear, written expectations and that Applicant failed to meet
those expectations.”
morale)”
Applicant’s Arguments
The applicant stated that “the initial plan was for morale to go to an Ensign on
staff.” However, a new chief petty officer took over morale, instead, before the LTJG
left. Moreover, the applicant stated, there was a plan in place for the Operations Center
supervisor to become the EKMS alternate. Therefore, the applicant alleged, this SOER
comment is false and punishable under Article 107 of the UCMJ.
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted a statement signed by the
Operations Center Supervisor, who wrote that when the EKMS alternate was selected
for flight school in August 2004,3 the Operations and Communications Centers were
understaffed and so no one could attend EKMS manager school to qualify as the alter-
nate EKMS manager. Moreover, the Group was “unable to obtain an emergency quota
to [have someone at the Group attend] EKMS manager school.” Therefore, before the
EKMS alternate left, he himself “began the process of learning the EKMS alternate posi-
tion by both completing training on the EKMS computer system self study guide and
beginning the completion process of the JQR instruction.” So that he could balance that
self study with his regular SAR duties, the applicant and the CO agreed to request a
waiver contingent upon him completing the JQR instruction by October 15, 2004. The
waiver was requested before the EKMS alternate left but granted by Headquarters
afterward.
The CO stated that because the applicant did not plan adequately the relief for
these positions did not go smoothly. He stated that the “reliefs were haphazard and
reactionary.”
The PRRB argued that the state of the morale account documents submitted by
the applicant, the MLC Compliance Inspection Report, and the documentation of the
feedback sessions show that the applicant failed to meet the CO’s clear, written expecta-
tions with respect to relief of departing personnel.
COMMENT [11]: “released ‘possible compromise’ message without briefing CO”
The applicant stated this was a one-time event that the CO apparently took as a
usurpation of his authority rather than a pragmatically efficient show of initiative on
the applicant’s part. The applicant stated that his action “followed [the District] secu-
rity manager’s guidance” and that there was no “evidence of operational impact or
importance.”
The CO stated that he had no problem with the applicant releasing the message
as he had “by direction” authority to do so but that the applicant failed to brief him
first. “In other words, my boss at the District would know that I had a possible com-
promise of classified material at my unit before I did.”
In rebuttal, the applicant stated that although he “did not brief the CO, [he] was
under the impression that the Chief had briefed him.” Therefore, it was an issue of mis-
communication and “not a usurpation of the CO’s authority.”
COMMENT [12]: “Failed to adapt/respond: in midst of difficult fatality case/mishap,
relieved as President, Local MAB (failed to pull radio tapes, develop inventory, or
provide investigator with comprehensive evidence package)”
3 However, in written feedback dated August 13, 2004, the CO noted that the officer had been selected for
flight school”[a]lmost two months ago.”
Applicant’s Arguments
The applicant stated that he was first to debrief the members involved in the
mishap. Moreover, following the mishap, he personally conducted a full inventory and
did most of the work himself, and the CO used this fact to relieve him as president. The
applicant stated that he had the tapes copied as soon as manpower was available but
“had to actually intervene and point out to the CO that we were operating dangerously
close to missing distress calls because the tapes were being pulled in the Operations
Center.” Even after he was relieved as president, the Mishap Analysis Board (MAB) got
everything they needed from him.
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted a statement signed by the
commander appointed by the Commandant to serve as president of the MAB. He
wrote that the applicant “provided me excellent support with all administrative issues
and requirements. Upon arriving at the Group office, I was met with a complete pack-
age of all related material regarding this mishap. Statements, radio logs, Group/Sta
Chrono Logs, press releases, pictures and local coast pilot information were all gath-
ered, neatly packaged and awaiting my arrival. During my time at the Group, I was
provided all the support I requested by [the applicant] immediately upon my asking.
The on-site investigation went very well, in large part, [due] to the organization and
initiative demonstrated by [the applicant]. … His support was always very timely, very
professional and greatly appreciated.” The applicant also submitted a letter from the
District Commander to the Commandant stating that in July 2004, the Group’s “pre-
mishap plan worked exceptionally well during this mishap.”
CO’s Arguments
The CO stated that he removed the applicant as president of the MAB because
the applicant failed to collect all required blood samples; notified the Safety Officer but
told him not to come to the office; had no emergency child care plan, contrary to the
CO’s direction and so had to bring his pre-school children to the office; waited until the
morning to collect urine samples and sent them directly to the lab, instead of holding
them for the investigating officer, so no subsequent testing could be done; failed to pull
the DVL (radio) tapes in accordance with standard practice; did not prepare an inven-
tory of evidence until the CO called him several days later at home about it; left the
office on the day of the mishap without checking in with the CO; failed to delegate tasks
so that he photocopied hundreds of pages himself and “sat in the pump house by him-
self filling out an inventory sheet”; did not keep the CO adequately informed; did not
timely issue a required 72-hour report; and failed to check the radio logs before a pack-
age was sent to the investigator. The CO stated that ultimately the evidence was in
good shape for the safety investigator because the administrative investigator “spent
about a week at the unit collecting data and interviewing people.”
Reviewer’s Comment
The reviewer stated that following a mishap, the local MAB was supposed to
gather evidence and data to hand over to a Commandant-appointed MAB when it
arrived. On the day after the mishap, the CO “reported that [the applicant] had been
unable to devote his full attention to the MAB duties overnight because he was simul-
taneously caring for his children while his wife was away.” The CO later told him that
he had replaced the applicant as MAB president because the applicant “had not
performed all of the duties expected of the MAB president and particularly that he had
not secured the radio tapes or developed a chain-of-custody inventory of the mishap
evidence.” The applicant later assisted the officers appointed to conduct the adminis-
trative and mishap investigations, “using evidence that both he and [the officer the CO
chose to replace him] had collected during their respective periods as MAB president.”
CGPC’s Comment
CGPC states that the commander who wrote on behalf of the applicant did not
arrive at the Group until several weeks after the mishap occurred and so could not
address the reasons for the applicant’s removal as president of the MAB.
Applicant’s Rebuttal
The applicant stated that he did not immediately order blood tests because
Headquarters told him that it “was not so much an issue and that the urine would tell
them the same information.” He stated that he could not hold onto the urine specimens
because the Group did not have anywhere to store them. He stated that he told the
safety officer that he would check the mishap plan to see if he needed him and later had
the safety officer come in to assist. The applicant stated that he “did not delegate [MAB
duties such as photocopying] because [he] wanted to keep positive control” and he did
not report back to the CO because the CO had told him they would keep the MAB
duties and SAR duties, which the CO was overseeing, separate and the applicant “had
no reason to believe that autonomy had been rescinded.”
In support of these allegations, the applicant submitted a statement from the
Reserve captain who took over as president of the MAB at the direction of the CO. The
captain stated that the mishap occurred on a reserve drill weekend. As president of the
MAB, the applicant was busy “preparing for the arrival of the Headquarters-assigned
MAB, making copies, organizing manuals, [and performing inventory on] the contents
of the boat.” The CO, however, did not think that the applicant was working fast
enough or delegating enough work or was in full control. When the CO asked the cap-
tain’s opinion, the latter stated that he thought “everything was going just fine” but he
“accepted the challenge” when the CO later asked him to take over. Therefore, he
stayed on active duty for an extra four days, though he “honestly did not see the need,”
and the applicant helped him whenever he asked for assistance. The captain stated he
does not believe that he himself “added any significant value to the process” because
the applicant “had compiled most of the information himself.” He stated that he
admired the applicant’s willingness to assist and stoic and pragmatic reaction to being
relieved as MAB president. He stated that both the applicant and the CO were very fine
officers who “did not get along.”
COMMENT [13]: “even after red-flag warning by admin officer for morale 1 month
in advance, account in poor shape for MLC inspector”
The applicant stated that the “red flag” was that “the units were not keeping re-
cords of their sales.” Therefore, in accordance with guidance from the District, he
stopped all sales and had the subordinate units’ morale officers collect and account for
funds. Further, he argued, since the morale account was “not ready for inspection,”
there is no documentation that it was actually in “poor shape for MLC inspector.”
The CO stated that the account was in poor shape if it was “so disorganized
[that] the MLC inspector [could not] make sense of it.” He also noted that cups of quar-
ters from the coffee machine sat in the applicant’s office for a couple of weeks.
COMMENT [14]: “neglected to pass written MI discrepancies from CO to depart-
ment heads”
The applicant alleged that the Engineering Officer kept the discrepancy list and
that he himself “started using the CO’s work list as a notification tool for tasks/actions
required by department heads.”
The CO stated that this was a list of immediate repair issues that he had given
the applicant on May 19, 2004. He did not expressly tell the applicant to pass the list to
the department heads but assumed that he would as there was no other way to accom-
plish the tasks. However, about a month later, the Engineering Officer, who was
responsible for many of the items on the list, had not received it from the applicant.
In rebuttal, the applicant stated that he did not pass any of the information in the
CO’s written feedback dated May 19, 2004, to the department heads but that they “were
directed to conduct a thorough cleanup of their respective areas.”
COMMENT [15]: “unresponsive to clear guidance by CO after frequent oral & writ-
ten feedback”
The applicant submitted an email from the CO in which the latter wrote, “you
were acting Group Commander last week and held down the fort well in my absence.”
He further stated that the CO’s “written feedback and counseling sessions” started on
August 13, 2004, just forty days before he was relieved as XO. The applicant submitted
The CO stated that he gave the applicant “frequent oral and written feedback”
two “feedback sheets” he received from the CO. He stated that when he tried to explain
the circumstances around certain matters listed on those sheets, the CO was not inter-
ested in “the full story” and formed negative opinions of his performance and respon-
siveness instead of acquiring “a comprehensive understanding of the situations.”
and submitted copies of some of his written feedback.
COMMENT [16]: “OER’s submitted in good quality, but some late due to poor
tracking”
The applicant referred to his arguments concerning comment [1] above. He
stated that his tracking was not poor and did not cause any OERs to be late, since he
“knew exactly were [the] OERs were and why they were there.” He repeated his allega-
tion that during his entire time at the Group, only one OER for which he was responsi-
ble was late and that was because he had to help the reported-on officer prepare his
documentation as it was that officer’s first OER.
The CO stated that, according to the District, thirteen OERs for officers working
at the Group or its subunits arrived late during the evaluation period. The CO stated
that while he himself is “solely responsible for this miserable record,” the applicant
“never seemed to assume ownership for all OERs (active and reserve).”
The applicant stated that he was not responsible for any OERs but the three he
mentioned but still put the other officers’ OERs on the Group Worklist “as a reminder
for those responsible for their submission.”
COMMENT [17]: “enlisted evals accurate, requiring minor changes, but Group staff
E-6 marks 45 days late”
Applicant’s Arguments
The applicant stated the CO had told him that “it was acceptable for things to be
late as long as [he] provided an explanation” but that the CO provided him with “no
adequacy measure” to determine whether his explanations would be acceptable. The
applicant further stated that he was neither the supervisor nor marking official for any
E-6, but simply reviewed the E-6 evaluations prior to putting them on the CO’s desk for
signature as the approving official. He stated that he “knew the evals were late, but it
was more important to follow the Commandant’s Standing Orders and ‘lean forward’
and ‘take risks’ for the professional growth of our people (specifically, the new YNC
who needed to get onboard and learn the in-house process of routing evaluations), and
in this case, for the benefit of the unit’s automated process. No E-6 lost any professional
opportunities because of the slow routing of the evaluations.”
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted a statement by a senior
chief yeoman, who wrote that when he was preparing to leave the Group in May 2003,
he and the applicant discussed how he would turn over his duties to the new chief
yeoman (YNC). They discussed how the “enlisted evaluation tracking spreadsheet …
was an effective and innovative tracking system to ensure that 100% of the evals were
tracked and properly accounted for. … [The applicant] and I had agreed to let the new
YNC handle the May E-6 evals since it was close to his report date … . Also, I was there
to assist to launch the process with him. I had understood that [the new] YNC under-
stood the program. However, as with any new program, it may have prolonged its
completion since he was still learning it.”
CO’s Arguments
The CO stated that while the applicant may have agreed to a delay in the E-6
evaluations, he himself had not agreed to any such plan. He further stated that he does
not see what leaning forward and taking risks have to do with late performance evalua-
tions. The CO submitted copies of memoranda showing that the evaluations were late
due to “1) input from departments; 2) hand off of YNC(S) duties; 3) familiarization w/
[Group] process for YNC.”
PRRB’s Arguments
marks were submitted late” and that therefore the comment is supported.
Applicant’s Rebuttal
eleven months and had not been told that his autonomy was rescinded.
COMMENT [18]: “[The applicant] has been passively stubborn in not adjusting to or
meeting my expectations for my Deputy Group Commander.”
Applicant’s Arguments
The applicant argued that the CO had no basis for this comment since he met all
of the written expectations provided to him by the CO on May 19, 2004. The applicant
stated that he developed all of the tickler lists and status sheets as soon as the CO
requested them; used “empowerment initiatives [which] led to positive results/signifi-
cant change in every area of [the] Organizational Assessment Survey”; and “[r]esource-
fully captured Active Duty/Reserve/Auxiliary capabilities to finalize CO’s concept of a
seasonal mobilization plan.” The applicant stated that he himself completed and priori-
tized an SAR response plan conceived by the CO and yet he was unfairly criticized for
not being aware of or overseeing SAR.
The applicant stated that he had been granted autonomy in such matters for
The PRRB stated that the senior chief yeoman’s statement “is verification that the
The applicant stated that he “looked to the CO for more visionary leadership, but
what [he] got was ‘pull the prongs out on the presentation medals.’ Which … he did.
With the lack of communication re his command vision, [the applicant] continued [his]
leadership initiatives seeking unit transformation base on crew ownership. [The CO
saw that as passive stubbornness not to adjust to his expectations, and could not see the
positive outputs the crew was producing for him.”
CO’s Arguments
In his declaration to the PRRB, the CO provided numerous documents concern-
ing feedback he had provided the applicant during the reporting period. He stated that
he provided the applicant with “a great deal of feedback in hopes that [his skills] would
changed. I needed improvement in his performance, but his performance remained
virtually unchanged.” The CO noted that during a counseling session in August 2004,
the applicant had told him that the counseling was “of no use and [that he] saw no rea-
son to continue.”
The CO further stated that the applicant frequently spoke of himself as a “trans-
formational leader.” The CO, however, “did not care about his methods as much as I
cared about results. When [the applicant] clearly knew that I wanted things to get done
and he would not get them done, I viewed his actions as stubborn. … [H]e was stub-
born about meeting only his own expectations and not mine.” The CO stated that dur-
ing their counseling session on May 19, 2004, “[i]nstead of saying that he would buckle
down and get the job done, [the applicant] said that if necessary, he would ‘take the hit.’
This does not sound like a Deputy Group Commander who is interested in getting the
job done.”
Reviewer’s Comment
In his declaration for the PRRB, the reviewer stated that he “would use the same
phrase to describe [the applicant]. … His resistance to change was especially evident in
[his] unwillingness to become more involved in the operational aspects of Group … .
[The CO] was extremely involved in Group Xxxxxxxx’ operations and saw that as the
key function of the Group. He told me that in order to be an effective Deputy (and
potential Acting CO), [the applicant] also needed to be more involved in Group opera-
tions. Station OINCs and XPOs were required to spend some time each month under-
way on their small boats and [the CO] asked for the same commitment from [the appli-
cant]. However, [the applicant] espoused his belief that the Group was ‘non-opera-
tional’ and evidently saw his role as purely administrative. [The CO’s] continued
attempts to gain his participation in underway operations and RFO/Stan visits were
unsuccessful.”
The CO stated that his written feedback to the applicant shows that the applicant
Applicant’s Rebuttal
The applicant stated that the reviewer never once spoke to him about his per-
formance or relief as Deputy Group Commander. Therefore, the applicant alleged, it is
not surprising that the reviewer echoed the CO since the reviewer and CO had worked
together at the District for some time.
COMMENT [19]: “Despite frequent and forthright feedback (both oral and written),
[he] has been slow or unresponsive to tasking, deadlines, and expectations.”
The applicant stated that this comment is false since he fulfilled each of the CO’s
requests during the evaluation period. He stated that he discussed the deadlines on the
work list with the CO, who “said they would/could slide, but the important issue was
to capture the tasks” and acknowledged that everyone in the chain of command would
need the timelines to be adjusted. The applicant complained that when he responded to
the CO’s feedback, the CO did not listen or respond. Moreover, “[t]here were no recur-
ring issues in any of the feedback. Each feedback session was a new list of the CO’s
perceived shortcomings.”
was not meeting his expectations.
COMMENT [20]: “He is good at responding to crises, but not at planning to prevent
them, turning normal military events into fires to put out (awards, personnel trans-
fers, reports, evaluations, District Commander visit).”
The applicant stated that 31 of 32 awards were delivered to the member before
departure, that personnel transfers that summer “had no detrimental impact on mission
capability,” and that all reports were submitted on time. Regarding the District Com-
mander’s visit, the applicant alleged that it was “not a crisis situation” even though they
were given only four days’ notification and that he made positive comments about the
Group.
The CO stated that the applicant did not hold regular meetings of department
heads or have “officers call prior to quarters. … Consequently, the staff did not have
coordinated, planned direction. We got things done, but frequently it was reactive, not
pro-active.”
COMMENT [21]: “Chooses ‘inspirational’ leadership model, but lacks ability to
adapt where it falls short.”
The applicant alleged that “there is no evidence of instances where [his] leader-
ship fell short.” He noted that in prior OERs, he had been commended for his leader-
ship style. He submitted a copy of the results of the Group’s Organizational Assess-
ment Survey, which, he alleged, “show the value a transformational/inspirational lead-
ership style can provide a unit (i.e., results and effectiveness). The across-the-board
improvements in the OAS results are a direct indication of the work climate [the appli-
cant] built in [his] two years [at the Group] through [his] leadership, initiative, and
planning.”
The CO stated that, while he likes inspirational leadership, “at times, the XO
needs to be tough on the crew. Not once did I see [the applicant] be tough on a crew-
member” during the evaluation period.
COMMENT [22]: “Lacked initiative/career development.”
Applicant’s Arguments
The applicant stated that this comment is false. He pointed out that he was tak-
ing classes towards a doctoral degree that summer and received a 3.85 grade point
average. He alleged that this comment is indicative of the CO’s “under-appreciation
and/or lack of understanding for the working environment and the effort it takes to
make it optimum.” He stated that his “boat forces days” and “operational expertise”
were acquired as a junior officer and that his career path is “human resource and orga-
nizational development.” Therefore, while being on the boats it fun, it was not neces-
sary since that department was being managed well and did not need to be micro-
managed, although the CO “obviously expected” it. Instead, he focused his efforts and
initiatives on “[r]etention, morale, rewards and recognition, people first initiatives and
stewardship [which] were all being pointed out as organizational leadership concerns,
needing local intervention.” The applicant alleged that his initiatives “were simply not
recognized as such.”
CO’s Arguments
The CO stated that he had spelled out both verbally and in writing to the appli-
cant that he expected the applicant to be able to assume his operational duties in his
absence. The CO stated that such directions are usually unnecessary because most XOs
want to become COs and so seek skills in operational areas. The CO had told him to
have a plan for emergency child care when his wife was out of town on long business
trips, but the applicant did not do so. The CO further argued that he “should not have
had to tell [the applicant] to read a member his rights”; “should not have had to provide
him with templates for ticklers and worklists”; “should not have had to conduct a mate-
riel inspection”; and “should not have had to conduct weekly feedback sessions with an
O-4.” Therefore, the CO stated, “I stand by my comment that [the applicant] lacked ini-
tiative. Further, he took few steps to improve himself professionally on the operational
side. I recognize that he had given up on the operational mission, but since he was
acting CO in my absence, I could not allow him to stop learning about the operational
mission.”
Applicant’s Rebuttal
The applicant alleged that “by making and maintaining his assumption [that the
applicant wanted to command], the CO … totally discount[ed] my aspirations. Having
already been a commanding officer, I was not interested in the CO’s recommendation
for command, and told him that in many of our discussions. My career aspirations are
toward assignments in Human Resources and leadership policy, but the CO considered
my career intentions invalid, and used his own aspirations to evaluate my initiative and
career development plans.”
COMMENT [23]: “did not set foot on a CG boat during entire reporting period”
The applicant stated that this comment is a false exaggeration as he did a “bow-
to-stern inventory” onboard the boat involved in the mishap on July 20, 2004. More-
over, he argued, the busy SAR season, which the SOER covered, is hardly the time to
ask the Operations Division to take the Group XO (himself) on a boat ride, as it was not
a responsibility or expectation that he (or any XO) do so. Getting on a boat that
summer would not have developed his career “in a way that can’t be done through
communicating with crews, Officers-in-Charge, and [subordinate] unit COs … which
[he] did routinely.” The applicant stated that this SOER comment “does not support
any performance dimension or any organizational expectation/standard and does not
support a mark of three in initiative.” He argued that there was no need for him to step
on a boat and that whether he did so that summer is irrelevant to whether he showed
initiative and interest in his career development.
The applicant also argued that he showed initiative during the evaluation period
by “[c]oordinating an workplace climate diagnosis w/ George Washington University
and STA OIC [the Station Officer in Charge] based on symbolic space and power theory
to help OIC institutionalize professionalism.”
The CO stated that his “OER feedback” to the applicant in early May 2004 stated
the expectation that the applicant “get underway with our units on a periodic (monthly)
basis.” The CO stated that setting foot on a boat that has capsized in the surf “is not the
type of operational involvement that I expect from my deputy. I prefer operational
leadership to prevent mishaps, not to investigate them.”
COMMENT [24]: “did not participate in Ready for OPS (RFO)/STAN visits”
The applicant stated that there “was no expectation presented for [him] to con-
duct any aspect of the Ready for Operations program” and that he trusted the Opera-
tions Officer to do his job. He argued that whether he participated in the RFO/STAN
visits is irrelevant to whether he showed initiative and interest in his career develop-
ment and that his decision not to participate in the visits did not support a mark of 3 in
the performance dimension “Initiative.” He argued that his participation would have
been a “wasteful use of human resource capacity.” However, he edited the RFO result
letters sent back to the subordinate units and therefore gained operational readiness
oversight through routine interactions with the unit command cadres.
The “OER feedback” counseling that the CO provided to the PRRB indicates that
he told the applicant in May 2004 pursuant to his prior OER that the applicant was
expected to “participate in the RFO program.”
COMMENT [25]: “took no steps to develop plan for himself or subordinates to earn
boat forces pin”
Applicant’s Arguments
The applicant alleged that during the evaluation period, he drafted a memoran-
dum to have the CO authorize officers and chiefs to sign off on boat forces qualifica-
tions standards; he got a chief boatwain’s mate and a chief machinery technician to pre-
pare the curriculum; and he laid the “groundwork to develop a block of instruction for
boat forces qualifications to be implemented after SAR season.” Therefore, the com-
ment that he “took no steps” is absolutely false. The applicant further stated that he
was the only officer on staff who was eligible for the boat forces pin because he had
served at a boat force unit for at least five years. The applicant submitted a copy of a
memorandum from the CO dated June 15, 2004, in which he designated the Group’s
officers and chiefs as “instructor[s] authorized to verify certification of members work-
ing on the Boat Forces” qualifications. The letter also states that “[a]s a designated
instructor, you will prepare blocks of instruction and present the information to boat
forces personnel. … The Deputy Group Commander will prepare a training/presenta-
tion schedule and will help you prepare your respective training blocks.”
In support of his allegations, the applicant also submitted a statement from a
chief boatswain’s mate (BMC), who wrote that to the “best of my recollection, [the
applicant] and myself did in fact have conversations pertaining to the construction and
implementation of a boat force qualification process at Group … . Soon after I checked
in on July 01, 2004, [the applicant] discussed using my experience as a Boatswain’s Mate
to come up with a formal training program for those members wishing to qualify as
boat crew and compete for the Boat Forces Pin. On a separate occasion, we revisited
this idea and decided to set it aside until the Ready For Operations season on the 47
MLB was complete.”
CO’s Arguments
The CO stated that his OER feedback to the applicant in early May included
“mak[e] substantial progress toward your boat forces pin.” The CO stated that
although he signed the designation letter that the applicant prepared, nothing
happened thereafter, and he believes that the applicant “was simply trying to placate
me.” The CO stated that after he signed the letter “there was not one step forward on
quals or PQS toward the boat forces pin [for the applicant and four other officers
assigned to the Group] with the exception of a comms/controller qual” for one lieu-
tenant junior grade.
CGPC’s Comment
directions given him in CO’s designation letter.
Applicant’s Rebuttal
CGPC noted that there is no evidence that the applicant followed through on the
The applicant stated that none of the four officers mentioned by the CO had time
that summer to qualify for a Boat Forces Pin, so he took steps to have the training con-
ducted in the fall. The applicant submitted an email from a BMC who wrote that he
had brought the boat crew guide to the applicant and explained to him that most of the
qualifications could be done in the office. An email from another BMC states, “I
remember that you were in the process of crewman qualification.”
COMMENT [26]: “took no remedial area familiarization action when, as acting CDO,
did not know location of … Xxx (xxx Group is located on)”
The applicant stated that when he was asked where a particular xxx was, he
knew and stated its general location only. He stated that the Group is always referred
to as being located on the bay itself, not the xxx. Moreover, the CO’s question was not
related to any case, and as Command Duty Officer, he always “use[d] the local Marine
Atlases to ensure [he] was well-informed during the prosecution of operational cases.”
The CO stated that the point of this comment was that the applicant knew he was
not familiar with the geography of the area and “should have had the initiative and
sense of responsibility to review his area fam.” The CO’s feedback notes dated August
30, 2004, indicate that the issue arose when the applicant informed the CO that the
police had reported that a man had committed suicide by “walking off a dock in Xxxx
xxxx.” The applicant pointed west and “said it was somewhere near the Forge River.”
The CO pointed out that “[i]f the crew took three steps backward at quarters, they
would fall into Xxxx xxxx. The fact that you did not know that is disconcerting. I
attribute that lack of knowledge to your lack of underway time.”
In his declaration, the reviewer stated that the applicant’s “lack of familiarity
with the Group Xxxxxxxx area of responsibility, including the name of the body of
water that the Group offices are located on, called into serious question his ability to
perform as Acting CO. Although administrative and personnel functions are certainly
The CO stated that he verbally directed the applicant to flag important message
primary duties for an XO, I do not believe that a Deputy Group Commander should
exclude himself from the reason that a Group exists: to execute operational missions.”
In rebuttal, the applicant claimed that there “was no expectation for me to have
any area familiarization” and that it was his practice to rely on the GDOs and the mari-
time atlas.
COMMENT [27]: “failed to flag important message traffic while CO on leave
(COMDT Sector impl., D1(dcs))”
The applicant stated, “I have no proof that he told me not to, but he told me not
to.” The CO had told him to “stand down from the practice,” which was in place and
his standard practice when the CO first took command. The applicant submitted a
statement from the prior Group Commander who wrote that during his tenure, “it was
common practice for [the applicant] to flag important messages for me while I was
away from the office. This was initiated by the two of us, and was in place when I left.
I cannot speak to any conversations that went on between [the applicant and the next
Group Commander/CO] after the change of command, but [the applicant] was in the
practice of ensuring the CO was informed of important messages upon returning to the
office while I was the Group Commander.”
traffice and “should not have even needed to say it.”
COMMENT [28]: “sponsored fancy work contest”
The applicant alleged that this contest happened during the previous evaluation
period and so should not have been mentioned in the SOER. The CO stated that he
cannot remember the date of the contest. The JAG and CGPC recommended that the
Board remove this comment from the SOER since the CO does not remember.
COMMENT [29]: “While he was successful as the personnel officer in many respects,
he failed to grasp the breadth of his duties as the Deputy Group Commander, falling
short on operational matters, accountability, and unit planning.”
Applicant’s Arguments
The applicant stated that he took advantage of a storm warning to test and
improve the Group’s hurricane plan; that he was first to debrief members after a boat
mishap; that he personally conducted the inventory following the mishap and worked
with Navy personnel to have the data on the radio tapes transferred to a CD; and that
he “captured lessons learned to improve [the Group’s] mishap plan.” The applicant
alleged that “[a]ll unit plans were in place, and the hurricane and MISHAP plans were
put to use/tested during this period. [He] was engaged with the breadth of [his] XO
duties, but [he] did not have to duplicate the work of the Operations Officer (i.e., con-
duct RFO, get underway, etc.) to show that [he] was maintaining [his] competencies
that were documented in three previous OERs in the XO role.”
Group Commander, who wrote the following:
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted a statement from the prior
[The applicant] did an exceptional job as Deputy Group Commander during my time as
Group Commander … . He consistently exemplified outstanding leadership as Deputy
and is the primary reason that we not only improved readiness in my last year but
improved morale dramatically as well. His creative leadership and focus on encouraging
the crew to assume ownership of our successes led to numerous personnel turnarounds
… . [H]is performance and sound judgment provided me the utmost confidence in his
abilities to run the group in my absence—which he successfully did on numerous occa-
sions. Based on a little over a year with him, I came to the conclusion that he was quali-
fied … to be successful as a Group Commander … [H]is innovative leadership and skill
at utilizing the expertise of those around him, combined with his robust enthusi-
asm/engagement on operational issues reflected the maturity and judgment of someone
with far more operational experience than he had upon arrival. In addition, I ensured
that he was involved with or briefed thoroughly on every operational issue I dealt with to
guarantee he had the depth of knowledge necessary to be successful in that role. I had no
reservations at that time and have no knowledge of any information that would change
that opinion today. …
CO’s Arguments
The CO stated that the applicant “viewed his responsibilities as extending only
to the Group staff and not the six subordinate units. At times, he even viewed his
duties as solely those things that came across his desk. In other words, because there
was an operations officer, he was not responsible for operations. As the Deputy Group
Commander, he was responsible for all the missions and people of Group Xxxxxxxx,
whether he felt that way or not.”
The CO stated that while the applicant called the Group a “non-operational
unit,” this perception was wrong as the CO made decisions “about launching boats and
aircraft, directing searches, making risk assessments, and making next-of-kin notifica-
tions.” The CO stated that the applicant’s divergent views and priorities “ultimately
led [the CO] to relieve him of his duties and write a derogatory OER.” The CO also
alleged that before the applicant interviewed the member who confessed to drug use,
the applicant knew that there was a drug-use allegation against that member.
Reviewer’s Comment
In a declaration for the PRRB, the reviewer stated that he did not directly observe
the applicant’s performance during the evaluation period. However, when he visited
the Group in mid May, he “had an in-depth discussion with [the CO] concerning [the
applicant]” and that he spoke with the CO over the phone about the applicant many
times that summer. Following that meeting, the CO gave the applicant clear, written
expectations as well as verbal feedback. The CO “sought [his and others’] advice for
ideas on improving [the applicant’s] performance.” Based on those conversations with
the CO, the reviewer stated that he does not believe that personal feelings affected the
SOER or the decision to relieve the applicant. He alleged that the CO “worked hard to
share his performance expectations, to mentor his Deputy, and to raise [the applicant’s]
performance to an acceptable level. In the end, he concluded that Group … would be
best served with a more competent XO, so he relieved him.” The reviewer wrote that
even after reviewing all of the applicant’s rebuttals to the SOER, he does “not think that
personal feelings biased the [SOER], and [he] believes that it accurately portrays [the
applicant’s] performance during the period of that report.”
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 submission, and appli-
cable law:
Applicant’s Rebuttal
The applicant alleged that this comment is contradicted by the fact that he
received a mark of 4 for the performance category “Professional Competence,” since a
mark of 4 is supposed to signify that the officer has shown the “high level of perform-
ance expected of all Coast Guard officers.”
COMMENT [30]: “As a result, I can only recommend him for administrative posi-
tions.”
The applicant stated that the “majority (if not all) of the XO’s day-to-day job is
administrative” and that many of the criticisms in the SOER concern administrative
matters. He stated that this comment therefore contradicts the rest of the OER.
mend him for any operational positions.”
COMMENT [31]: “He possesses an extensive educational background and concern
for junior members that should be considered in the assignment process.”
The applicant argued that this comment unreasonably suggests that the Group
had no need for someone with “an extensive educational background [or] concern for
junior members.” The CO responded that he values education but “being educated
does not negate the need to perform.”
The CO stated that “[b]ased on [the applicant’s] performance, I could not recom-
The Board has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552.
The application was timely.
3.
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.
Article 10.A.1.b.1. of the Personnel Manual provides that “Commanding
officers must ensure accurate, fair, and objective evaluations are provided to all officers
under their command.” The applicant alleged that the SOER is erroneous and unjust
and asked the Board to remove it from his record. To establish that an OER is errone-
ous or unjust, an applicant must prove that the challenged OER was adversely affected
by a “misstatement of significant hard fact,” factors that “had no business being in the
rating process,” or a “clear and prejudicial violation of a statute or regulation.”4 The
Board must begin its analysis by presuming that the disputed SOER is correct as it
appears in the record, and the applicant bears the burden of proving by a preponder-
ance of the evidence that it is erroneous or unjust.5 Absent evidence to the contrary, the
Board presumes that the applicant’s rating officials prepared the SOER “correctly, law-
fully, and in good faith.”6 With these standards in mind, the Board has carefully con-
sidered all of the evidence presented regarding the SOER disputed in this case and
draws the following conclusions with respect to the evidence:
1.
2.
a.
COMMENTS [1] & [2]: The applicant has not proved by a prepon-
derance of the evidence that these comments are false or unjust. He has not proved that
poor tracking on his part did not cause certain deadlines to be missed. The fact that the
CO may himself have signed OERs late does not disprove these comments. The appli-
cant has not proved that given the number of missed deadlines, he did not unreasona-
bly delay using “ticklers” and lists to help prevent missed deadlines. Although the
record shows that, after the CO provided templates for such tools, the applicant did
develop them during the evaluation period, the applicant’s ultimate preparation of the
ticklers and lists does not persuade the Board that the CO’s criticism and implication
that they were needed earlier is inaccurate or unfair. The Board notes that the CO did
not mention missed deadlines in the applicant’s prior OER, but his silence on the matter
in the prior OER may have been a matter of forbearance and does not disprove Com-
ments [1] and/or [2].
COMMENTS [3], [4], [5], & [14]: The record indicates that on May
19, 2004, the CO provided the applicant with a list of twelve “immediate” materiel dis-
crepancies that he wanted fixed. He also forewarned the applicant that he would be
4 Germano v. United States, 26 Cl. Ct. 1446, 1460 (1992); Hary v. United States, 618 f.2d 704 (Cl. Ct. 1980);
CGBCMR Dkt. No. 86-96.
5 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b).
6 Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct.
Cl. 1979).
b.
c.
conducting a CO’s inspection and asked him to have things ready for inspection. The
applicant admitted that he did not forward the list of twelve discrepancies to the
department heads who would have ensured that the repairs were performed. The CO
stated that very little was done to prepare for his materiel inspection on June 16, 2004.
In addition, the Board notes that very few of the discrepancies that were identified
during that inspection and included on the discrepancy list were completed during the
evaluation period. Likewise, the applicant has not proved that maintenance issues such
as falling fences, weeds, painting, and dilapidated docks were promptly taken care of
under his direction or that, although the fitness trail was apparently usable, he ensured
timely completion of the associated amenities in accordance with the CO’s request. The
applicant stated that he planned to wait and have many or most of the discrepancies
corrected in the fall after the busy SAR season. This plan was obviously contrary to the
CO’s clear request and expectations that materiel discrepancies be addressed. The
description of his weekly XO’s inspections and purported responses does not explain
the extensive list of unaddressed discrepancies he submitted. The Board is not per-
suaded that Comments [3], [4], [5], and/or [14] are erroneous or unjust.
COMMENT [6]: The applicant alleged that he was prepared for
quarters. However, the record shows that he asked the Engineering Officer to take his
place at quarters just before it began even though he was previously aware that he had
a scheduled conference call during quarters. In addition, the CO stated that some of the
awards were unfinished in significant ways that made it very difficult for them to con-
duct the ceremony smoothly. The fact that one of the honorees submitted a statement
indicating that he did not notice a problem and thought that the event was well planned
does not disprove the difficulties encountered by the CO and the Engineering Officer.
The Board finds that the applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence
that Comment 6 is inaccurate or unfair.
COMMENT [7]: The MLC Compliance team labeled this issue a
“recommendation” in its report rather than a criticism. The CO stated that that the tone
of the inspector’s verbal outbrief on this subject was more critical than the report. In
addition, the record indicates that in the fall of 2003, the CO asked the applicant to con-
duct the urinalysis program aggressively after some members tested positive for drug
use. However, the Group collected 42% of its samples during the last 31 days before the
team’s inspection. In light of these facts, the Board cannot conclude that Comment [7] is
erroneous or unfair even though the Group ultimately conducted more than enough
urinalyses to comply with the program requirements.
COMMENTS [8] & [13]: The record indicates that, though fore-
warned of the upcoming MLC Compliance inspection, the applicant failed to ensure
that he himself or someone else present could explain the morale account documents or
that those documents were sufficiently clear for the inspector to understand without
verbal explanations. Therefore, the Board finds that the applicant has not proved that
Comments [8] and [13] are erroneous or unjust.
d.
e.
f.
g.
COMMENTS [9] & [10]: The applicant has not submitted proved
by a preponderance of the evidence that Comments [9] and [10] are erroneous or unjust.
The record indicates that the Group lacked ballcaps during the period they were most
needed and that several of the awards were arranged at the last minute or late. While
the applicant may have worked with the Operations Officer to cope with manpower
shortages, as he alleged, such actions would not disprove the comment that he had no
plan for the communications watch rotation at some point when one was needed. In
addition, the record supports the allegation that the relief of the morale and EKMS
alternate officers were “haphazard and reactionary” as the CO alleged. The Operations
Center Supervisor appears to have based his opinion of the timeliness of the applicant’s
relief plan on the supposition that the outgoing EKMS alternate was accepted to flight
school in August 2004. However, the CO’s written feedback dated August 12, 2004,
states that the outgoing EKMS alternate had been accepted to flight school in June.
COMMENT [11]: The applicant seems to have presented contra-
dictory arguments concerning his release of the message concerning the “possible com-
promise” of classified information. In his original application, he indicated that his act
in releasing the message without discussing it with the CO beforehand was a pragmati-
cally efficient show of initiative on his part. In his response to the advisory opinion, the
applicant stated that when he released the message he thought that a chief petty officer
had already informed the CO. The applicant has not addressed the CO’s concern that
he could easily have been blindsided and embarrassed if someone had called him about
the message. The Board finds that the applicant has not proved that Comment [11] is
erroneous or unfair.
COMMENT [12]: The applicant stated and presented supporting
evidence to show that the radio tapes were eventually pulled—though not timely and
not necessarily by him or at his direction—and that he eventually completed the inven-
tory. He admitted that the first package he sent to the investigator was incomplete. The
CO argued that the applicant did not timely pull the tapes in accordance with standard
practice or complete the inventory until several days after the mishap and after the CO
asked him about it. Although Comment [12] would be more accurate if the word
“timely” were included, the Board is not persuaded that it is an inaccurate description
of critical deficiencies in his performance during the most critical period—the hours
after the mishap. The Reserve captain stated that the CO asked his opinion of the appli-
cant’s performance during the weekend of the mishap, and the captain replied that he
thought it was “fine” and did not understand why he was later asked to take over.
However, the CO did not relieve the applicant as MAB president until several days
after the mishap, when he discovered that the applicant had not pulled the radio tapes
or completed the inventory.
COMMENTS [15], [18], & [19]: The applicant alleged that he
always responded to the CO’s guidance and met his expectations but that the CO sub-
h.
i.
j.
mitted new and different expectations each week. He argued that there were no redun-
dancies in the CO’s written feedback to him. The Board notes, however, that most of
the CO’s written criticisms during the evaluation period had common themes, such as
inadequate preparation, insufficient attention to detail, failure to timely update the CO,
and a lack of involvement in operational matters. The Board finds that the applicant
has not proved that Comments [15], [18], and [19] are erroneous or unjust.
COMMENTS [16] & [17]: The applicant alleged that only one of
the three OERs for which he was responsible was late during the reporting period. The
CO indicated that several OERs from the subunits were late and that he expected the
applicant to track all of the OERs at the Group and so help to ensure their timeliness.
The applicant has not shown that as the Group XO with primary responsibility for
human resources and administrative matters, it was unreasonable for the CO to criticize
him because of late OERs from the Group subunits even if the applicant was not in
those officers’ rating chains. In addition, although the applicant alleged that the E-6
evaluations were 45 days late “by design,” he has not shown why such a long delay was
necessary or that it was reasonable for him to make this plan without the CO’s agree-
ment. The Board finds that the applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the
evidence that Comments [16] and [17] are erroneous or unjust.
l.
k.
COMMENTS [20] & [21]: The applicant has not proved that
Comments [20] and [21] are erroneous or unjust. They echo and elaborate on other
comments in the SOER concerning inadequate preparation and results that the Board
has already addressed. Although the applicant alleged that the SOER is the result of a
conflict in leadership styles rather than of poor performance by him, the Board finds
that the CO clearly put the applicant on notice that the applicant’s style was not produc-
ing the results the CO wanted. The record supports the CO’s claim that the applicant
failed to adapt his style to ensure those results.
COMMENT [22]: Although the CO’s feedback provided some
examples of how the applicant failed to show initiative during the evaluation period,
the Board cannot see how the CO concluded that the applicant took no initiative for his
“career development” during the period. The applicant was taking classes toward his
PhD in organizational development that summer. Although he apparently displayed
little initiative to increase his operational skills, the applicant has apparently chosen to
pursue a non-operational career. Ignoring the CO’s urging to be more involved in
operational matters may not have been wise and may have greatly harmed the appli-
cant’s career, but that would be because the applicant failed to meet the CO’s expecta-
tions, not because he was not actively engaged in developing a career path. The Board
finds that the applicant has proved that the phrase “career development” in Comment
[22] in the SOER is erroneous and misleading and should be removed from his record.
COMMENT [23]: The CO admitted that, contrary to Comment
[23], the applicant did “set foot on a CG boat” during the evaluation period when he
m.
n.
boarded the boat that had capsized to perform inventory. In saying that the applicant
“did not set foot on a CG boat,” the CO apparently meant to indicate that the applicant
did not get underway on a Coast Guard boat. However, the Board finds that the appli-
cant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Comment [23] is a “misstate-
ment of significant hard fact”7 that should be removed from the SOER.
COMMENTS [24] & [26]: The applicant alleged that these com-
ments are unfair because he was not expected to participate in the Ready For Opera-
tions visits and that he did not need to be very familiar with the operational area
because he could rely on maritime atlases and GPOs when the need arose. In respond-
ing to the PRRB, the CO submitted “OER Feedback” indicating that he told the appli-
cant that he was expected to participate in RFO visits and to increase his overall
involvement in operational matters. Moreover, the Board is not persuaded that a Dep-
uty Group Commander does not need to be very familiar with the Group’s area of
operations. The Board finds that the applicant has not proved by a preponderance of
the evidence that Comments [24] and [26] are erroneous or unfair.
COMMENT [25]: The applicant alleged that he did take steps to
develop a plan for himself and others to earn boat forces pins. He submitted statements
from members showing that he talked to them about it and that he requested informa-
tion about it from a BMC. He also admitted, however, that he decided that the training
could wait until the fall because he decided that his subordinates did not have time to
work on their qualifications that summer. Therefore, it appears that the CO was correct
in believing that by drafting the letter, the applicant was “simply trying to placate
[him]” and did not intend to prioritize the matter as the CO had directed. Although the
applicant may have spoken to BMCs about the CO’s request, the Board finds that he has
not proved that he took the actual “steps”—such as preparing a training schedule and
making substantial progress toward qualifying himself—that the CO expected and
directed. He has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Comment [25] is
erroneous or unjust.
COMMENT [27]: The applicant claimed that the CO verbally told
him not to flag important messages soon after the CO took command. The CO stated
that he expressly asked the applicant to flag important messages while he was away.
Recognizing that it is difficult if not impossible to disprove the CO’s allegation, the
Board finds that the applicant has not overcome the presumption of regularity afforded
the CO with respect to Comment [27].
COMMENT [28]: The applicant alleged that the fancy work con-
test occurred during the prior reporting period. The CO admitted that he cannot
remember when it occurred, and the JAG and CGPC have recommended removal of
p.
o.
q.
7 Germano v. United States, 26 Cl. Ct. 1446, 1460 (1992); Hary v. United States, 618 f.2d 704 (Cl. Ct. 1980);
CGBCMR Dkt. No. 86-96.
r.
this comment. The Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence in the record
indicates that Comment [28] is erroneous and should be removed from the SOER.
COMMENTS [29], [30] & [31]: The applicant’s prior OERs as Dep-
uty Group Commander and the declaration of the prior Group Commander show that
the prior Group Commander believed that he “did an exceptional job” in that position.
It is therefore hard to understand how the new Group Commander could have evalu-
ated the applicant’s performance so differently and concluded that the applicant “failed
to grasp the breadth of his duties as the Deputy Group Commander, falling short on
operational matters, accountability, and unit planning.” However, the new Group
Commander was entitled to have very different expectations as to what work the Dep-
uty Group Commander would be involved in and how and when he would perform it.
The documentation of the CO’s feedback in the record shows that he expected more
operational involvement by the applicant, which the applicant resisted. The written
feedback also shows that the CO was very dissatisfied with some of the results pro-
duced by the applicant’s administrative efforts. The applicant has not proved that
Comments [29], [30] and [31] are products of a personality conflict or clash in leadership
styles. Though the CO may have had a very different leadership style, the record sup-
ports CGPC’s claim that these comments are the CO’s honest, professional assessment
of the applicant’s performance. The Board finds that the applicant has not proved that
Comments [29], [30], and [31] are erroneous or unfair.
The applicant alleged that the examples of poor performance in the SOER
were one-time events rather than performance trends that should have been docu-
mented. However, Article 10.A.4.c.4. of the Personnel Manual instructs raters to pro-
vide comments that cite “specific aspects of the Reported-on Officer’s performance and
behavior” and that “identify specific strengths and weaknesses in performance. Com-
ments must be sufficiently specific to paint a succinct picture of the officer’s perform-
ance and qualities.” Therefore, the CO was required to describe specific instances of
poor performance, rather than providing only general opinions of the applicant’s per-
formance trends. Moreover, the applicant has not proved that the events described in
the SOER were atypical of his performance that summer.
4.
5.
Therefore, the Board finds that the only relief the applicant is entitled to
with respect to the SOER is removal of the phrases “career development: did not set
foot on a CG boat during entire reporting period” and “sponsored fancy work contest”
from block 8. The mark of 3 that the applicant received for “Initiative” is amply
supported by the remaining Comments [24] and [25] and so need not be corrected.
The applicant made numerous allegations with respect to the actions and
attitudes of his CO and reviewer. Those allegations not specifically addressed above
are considered to be not dispositive of the case.
6.
7.
Accordingly, the Board finds that the applicant is entitled to only partial
relief—the removal of the comments quoted in Finding 5 from the SOER—because they
constitute “misstatement[s] of a significant hard fact[s].”8 The applicant has not proved
that the SOER contains other factual errors or that is was adversely affected by factors
that “had no business being in the rating process” or a “clear and prejudicial violation
of a statute or regulation.”9
ORDER
The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his military
record is denied, except that the Coast Guard shall remove the following phrases from
block 8 of the special OER he received for the period May 1 through September 22, 2004:
• “career development: did not set foot on a CG boat during entire reporting
period”; and
• “sponsored fancy work contest.”
All other relief is denied.
Toby Bishop
Jordan S. Fried
Nancy L. Friedman
8 Germano v. United States, 26 Cl. Ct. 1446, 1460 (1992); Hary v. United States, 618 F.2d 704 (Cl. Ct. 1980);
CGBCMR Dkt. No. 86-96.
9 Id.
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2003-089
However, the IO reported that although the coxswains involved, xxxxxx and xxxxxx, were “certified as UTB coxswains,” they were “not qualified in TPSB tactics in accor- dance with current PSU training standards.” The IO noted that during a “safety stand down” on June 20, xxxx, numerous areas of concern had been identified regarding the Boat and Engineering Divisions of the PSU, including a “noted ‘lack of discipline’ between coxswains conducting force on force drills”; “violations of safety...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2007-042
Under performance of duties in the supervisor’s portion of the SOER, the applicant received a mark of 4 in adaptability; marks of 3 in planning and preparedness, using resources, and professional presence; and a mark of 2 in results/effectiveness.2 In support of the below average marks in this section of the SOER, the supervisor wrote: [The applicant] consistently failed to set priorities for self & subordinates to meet deadlines & on numerous occasions failed to provide CMD w/plan of attack...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2001-017
The applicant alleged that she told her supervisor about the class. The Chief Counsel pointed out that the XO’s declaration supports the supervisor’s comment in the disputed OER. out, the applicant did not dispute in her application to the PRRB: The Chief Counsel also addressed the following comments, which, he pointed COMMENTS [A1] & [A2]: The Chief Counsel alleged that the applicant’s excuse for resisting supporting the reservists (being short-staffed) “does not refute the objectivity of...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2007-196
The reporting officer further stated: In block 7 of the OER, the reporting officer concurred with the supervisor’s marks and In the leadership section of the disputed OER, the applicant received a mark of 6 in “looking out for others,” marks of 5 in “developing others,” “directing others,” and “evaluations,” and marks of 3 in “workplace climate” and “teamwork.” The supervisors wrote the following in the comment block: [The applicant] was presented opportunities to learn critical new skills...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2008-174
I am relieving this officer of responsibilities of the Operations Officer, Navigator and Tactical Action Officer. Since she was standing watch in the CIC during the transit, she could not see which chart the bridge team was using. states that on the comparison scale in an OER, a Reporting Officer “shall fill 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...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2004-007
This final decision, dated July 29, 2004, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record by removing a very poor special officer evaluation report (SOER) that he received for his service as the Executive Officer (XO) of the cutter XXX from June 1 until October 8, 2001, when, he alleged, he was relieved of duty because of a personality conflict with his commanding officer (CO); by removing the regular OER that he received...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2006-104
On his OERs, his commanding officer strongly recommended him for promotion and noted the applicant’s desire to serve as the XO or CO of a cutter. On his first OER in this position, the applicant received all marks of 4 and 5 and his CO’s recommendation for promotion. On his OERs for this work, he has received high marks of 5, 6, and 7 in the performance categories, marks of 5 on the comparison scale, and his reporting officers’ strong recommendations for command afloat and promotion to commander.
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2007-113
APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS In the Workplace Climate category (block 5e), the applicant disputed the mark of 3 supported by the following disputed comments: “Kept FN assigned to cutter months after being directed by D17 to ADASSIGN mbr for medical reasons, creating extra burden for the crew.” “Several minor human relations and work-life incidents on cutter indicative of low morale and lack of leadership role model.” “PO promotion delayed due to non-completion of enlisted marks.” In block 7 of...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2003-011
At the time, his published rating chain was his station’s commanding officer (CO) as supervisor, the Group’s Senior Reserve Officer as reporting officer, and the Group Commander as reviewer. All Coast Guard records and actions by rating chain officials are accorded a presumption of regularity by the Board.6 However, the applicant has proved that the disputed OER was prepared by an invalid rating chain, in violation of Articles 10.A.2.b.2.b. The Board notes that the applicant’s prior OER in...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2010-093
With regard to scheduling morale events, the applicant stated that the Morale Committee was not his responsibility; that he passed the proposed dates for morale events on March 11 and April 11, 2008, to his supervisor, CDR X, and to CAPT X’s administrative assistant at a meeting of Department Heads on February 27, 2008; and that CAPT X learned he had done so before she prepared the disputed OER. The applicant’s second OER as the Xxxxxx Department Head, dated March 31, 2007, was his first as...