DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2006-036 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
AUTHOR:  Andrews, J. 
 
 
This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 
425  of  title  14  of  the  United  States  Code.    The  Chair  docketed  the  case  on  January  5, 
2006, upon receipt of the applicant’s completed application. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

This final decision, dated August 9, 2006, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

 
 
The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  her  record  by  removing  her  officer 
evaluation report (OER) for the period June 1, 2000, to May 31, 2001.  The disputed OER 
contains several marks of 4 (on a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 being best) and a mark in the 
fourth spot on the comparison scale.  While serving in the same billet, the applicant had 
previously received OERs with only one mark of 4 (for “Evaluations”) and marks in the 
fifth spot on the comparison scale from her prior reporting officer, who was the District 
Chief of Staff.  The disputed OER contains the following written comments by CAPT X, 
the new District Chief of Staff, who acted as her reporting officer (RO): 
 

•  Block  7:    “…  Demonstrated  some  improvement  during  period  accepting  direc-

tion, meeting imposed deadlines and recognizing externally established priorities.” 
 

•  Block 8:  “… Attention to detail in carrying out tasking and following procedures 
improved  during  period.    Consistently  sought  out  additional  responsibilities  and 
opportunities (president of local officer assn/community service/VIP visit coord), but 
sometimes at expense of primary tasking.” 
 

•  Block 10:  “Innovative, intelligent, hard-working and dedicated professional that 
holds great potential and could excel at tough, challenging assignments. … [B]ut strong 
self-motivation and direction interfere with meeting deadlines and priorities established 
by superiors.  Would benefit from assignment to a MSO to broaden career possibilities.  
If energy/expertise can be effectively directed I believe [the applicant] is capable of suc-
ceeding in the most difficult and challenging assignments.  Recommended for consid-
eration with peers.” 
 

The applicant stated that the disputed OER should be removed from her record 
because  CAPT  X,  who  was  a  Reserve  officer  serving  on  short-term  active  duty,  was 
never designated as a member of her rating chain.  She alleged that he arrived at the 
command on February 28, 2001, and so observed her performance for only the last three 
months of the year-long evaluation period.  The applicant alleged that the prior Chief of 
Staff, her properly designated RO, left the command on December 1, 2000, without pre-
paring an OER, which she alleged was required by regulation.1  She argued that if he 
had done so, the disputed OER would probably not have been prepared.2 

 
The applicant further alleged that she was unaware during the evaluation period 
that CAPT X would serve as her RO.  She stated that if she had known CAPT X was to 
be her RO, she would have solicited and adopted his priorities.  She pointed out that 
her failure to adopt his priorities was the primary subject of CAPT X’s criticism in the 
disputed OER.  However, she alleged, she was told that CAPT X would only be work-
ing  on  special  projects  and  she  rarely  interacted  with  him,  so  she  continued  to  work 
according to the priorities set by her prior RO. 
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  when  she  received  the  disputed  OER,  she  was  very 
surprised by the negative comments and asked for feedback from her supervisor.  How-
ever,  he  had  retired  and  either  would  not  or  could  not  explain  the  comments  to  her.  
When she asked CAPT X, he told her that he had received no input for the OER from 
her prior, properly designated RO or from her other chain of command (she was serv-
ing in a “shared billet”).  The applicant alleged that she verified his answer by asking 
her prior RO and her other chain of command, and they all told her that they had not 

                                                 
1 Article 10.A.3.a. of the Personnel Manual provides the submission schedule for regular OERs.  The end 
date  of  a  lieutenant’s  annual  OER  is  May  31.    However,  Article  10.A.3.a.2.b.  provides  that  with  a 
detachment or change of the reporting officer, “OERs for officers on an annual submission schedule are 
required  if  more  than  six  months  (i.e.,  182  days)  have  elapsed  since  the  ending  date  of the last regular 
OER or the date reported present unit, whichever is later.”   
2 Article 10.A.3.a.1.b. of the Personnel Manual provides that an “[a]nnual or semiannual OER submission 
is optional (waivers not required) if:  

“(1) A regular OER (or a special OER that counts for continuity) was submitted within 182 days 

annual reports or 92 days for semiannual reports.” 

prior to the scheduled submission date for annual reports or 92 days for semiannual reports. 

“(2) A regular OER will be submitted within the 182 days following the scheduled due date for 

been  asked  to  provide  any  input  for  her  OER.3    Moreover,  she  alleged,  her  prior  RO 
told her that he had offered to provide input but that CAPT X had declined to accept it. 
 
The applicant submitted a copy of an organizational chart of her billet, which she 
 
designed and which shows that, as a Human Resources Manager and Reserve Program 
Administrator, she was tasked by and answered to both the District Chief of Staff and 
the Integrated Support Command.   
 

The applicant also made allegations about inconsistencies in the numerical marks 
and comments of the disputed OER and about the actions and attitudes of members of 
her rating chain.  They are not summarized here because the Coast Guard has recom-
mended removing the disputed OER for reasons unrelated to these other allegations. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On June 5, 2006, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 
an advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board grant relief in this case 
by replacing the disputed OER with one prepared “for continuity purposes only.”  The 
JAG based his recommendation on a memorandum on the case prepared by the Coast 
Guard Personnel Command (CGPC), which the JAG adopted.   
 
 
CGPC stated that the officer’s orders and pay records show that CAPT X began 
working  at  the  applicant’s  command  on  November  9,  2000,  and  continued  working 
there through the end of the reporting period.  In addition, the prior RO left the com-
mand  on  November  14,  2000,  rather  than  December  1,  2000,  as  the  applicant  alleged.  
Therefore, because fewer than 182 days had passed since the end date of the applicant’s 
prior evaluation period, no OER was required as a result of the designated RO’s depar-
ture. 
 
 
CGPC stated that the applicant’s “claim that she was never informed of who her 
new  Reporting  Officer  was  seems  unlikely”  since  she  herself  provided  a  copy  of  an 
organizational chart showing that CAPT X was the Chief of Staff and her supervisor’s 
supervisor.4    However,  CGPC  stated,  CAPT  X  has  admitted  that  he  was  never desig-
nated in writing as the applicant’s RO during the evaluation period. 
 
                                                 
3 Article  10.A.2.e.2.g.  of the Personnel Manual states, “If the Reporting Officer changes and a complete 
OER is not submitted, the departing Reporting Officer shall provide the new Reporting Officer a draft of 
the  applicable  OER  sections.    The  draft  may  be  handwritten  and  shall  include  marks  and  comments 
(bullet  statements  are  acceptable)  for  the  period  of  observation,  prepared  and  signed  by  the  departing 
Reporting Officer.” 
4 Article 10.A.1.c.4. of the Personnel Manual provides that a rating chain includes the reported-on officer; 
his supervisor, who is “[n]ormally, the individual to whom the Reported-on Officer answers on a daily or 
frequent  basis  and  from  whom  the  Reported-on  Officer  receives  the  majority  of  direction  and  require-
ments”; the reporting officer, who is “[n]ormally the Supervisor’s supervisor”; and the reviewer, who is 
“[n]ormally the Reporting Officer’s supervisor.” 

CGPC stated that the applicant is correct in alleging that the designated RO pro-
vided no input to CAPT X for the applicant’s OER.  CGPC stated that his failure to do 
so  violated  Coast  Guard  policy  under  Article  10.A.2.e.2.g.  of  the  Personnel  Manual.  
However, CGPC stated, the applicant’s claim that the departing RO offered to provide 
input and was rebuffed is false and that her inclusion of this claim in her application “is 
troubling  and calls into question [her] credibility.”  In support of these claims, CGPC 
submitted signed declarations by the applicant’s supervisor, CAPT X, and prior desig-
nated RO. 

 
CGPC  argued  that  although  most  of  the  applicant’s  claims  are  unfounded,  the 
disputed OER should be removed from her record because the prior RO failed to pro-
vide input for the OER in accordance with Article 10.A.2.e.2.g. of the Personnel Manual.  
CGPC  stated  that  his  failure  to  do  so  was  “potentially  prejudicial”  to  the  applicant.  
CGPC’s  arguments  about  the  applicant’s  other  allegations  are  not  included  in  this 
summary as they are not germane to the Board’s findings and conclusions. 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 

On July 2, 2006, the BCMR received the applicant’s response to the Coast Guard’s 
advisory opinion.  The applicant stated that she agreed with the Coast Guard’s recom-
mendation, but also asked that the Board order the Coast Guard to promote her to lieu-
tenant commander (LCDR).   

 
The  applicant  stated  that  the  disputed  OER  was  present  in  her  record  when  it 
was reviewed by the LCDR selection board in the summer of 2005.  She was not selected 
for promotion by that board.  Therefore, she argued, her failure of selection should be 
removed from her record and her date of rank should be backdated. 

 
The applicant further alleged that in the summer of 2004 her record was errone-
ously  “placed  on  the  reserve  program  administrator  (RPA)  register  vice  active  duty 
register list” even though she had already returned to active duty from sabbatical.  She 
alleged  that  she  was  not  informed  of  the  error  until  the  LCDR  selection  board  had 
already met.  Since she was not considered by the 2004 LCDR selection board and the 
Coast Guard does not convene special selection boards, she had to wait to be considered 
for  promotion  until  2005.    The  applicant  alleged  that  if  she  had  been  selected  for 
promotion  in  2004,  she  would  have  been  promoted  to  LCDR  on  December  1,  2005.  
Therefore, she asked the Board to promote her to LCDR with a date of rank of Decem-
ber 1, 2005. 
 

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: 

1. 

2. 

4. 

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

 
 
§ 1552.  The application was timely.5 
 
 
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 disputed OER is erroneous and 
unjust and asked the Board to remove it from her record.  To establish that an OER is 
erroneous  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.”6  
The Board must begin its analysis by presuming that the disputed OER 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.7  Absent evidence to the contrary, the 
Board  presumes  that the OER was prepared “correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.”8  
With  these  standards  in  mind,  the  Board  has  carefully  considered  all  of  the  evidence 
presented regarding the OER disputed in this case and draws the following conclusions 
with respect to the evidence: 
 
 
The Coast Guard has admitted that the officer who served as the District 
Chief of Staff and the applicant’s RO from June 1 through November 14, 2000, failed to 
leave input for her next OER when he left the command.  CGPC stated that this failure 
constituted a violation of Article 10.A.2.e.2.g. of the Personnel Manual, which states that 
“[i]f the Reporting Officer changes and a complete OER is not submitted, the departing 
Reporting Officer shall provide the new Reporting Officer a draft of the applicable OER 
sections.”  On this basis of this violation, CGPC stated that the disputed OER should be 
removed from the applicant’s record because the lack of input from the departing RO 
was “potentially prejudicial” to the applicant. 
 
 
The Board agrees with the Coast Guard that the disputed OER should be 
removed  from  the  applicant’s  record  because  the  departing  RO’s  failure  to  provide 
input for the disputed OER violated Article 10.A.2.e.2.g. of the Personnel Manual.  Since 
the applicant’s prior OERs, which were prepared by the departing RO, contained signi-
ficantly higher marks and better comments than the disputed OER, the Board finds that 
the violation of Article 10.A.2.e.2.g. was most likely prejudicial to her record.  Therefore, 
the disputed OER should be removed because the preponderance of the evidence in the 

3. 

                                                 
5 Detweiler v. Pena, 38 F.3d 591, 598 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (holding that section 205 of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ 
Civil Relief Act of 1940 “tolls the BCMR’s limitations period during a servicemember’s period of active 
duty”). 
6 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. 
7 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b). 
8 Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. 
Cl. 1979). 

record indicates that it was adversely affected by “clear and prejudicial violation of a 
statute or regulation.”9 
 
In her response to the advisory opinion, the applicant put forth two new 
 
requests:  that  the  Board  remove  her  2005  failure  of  selection  for  promotion to LCDR, 
and that the Board promote her to LCDR with a date of rank retroactive to December 1, 
2005.    The  requested  retroactive  date  of  rank  is  based  on  new  allegations  about  an 
administrative  error  that  prevented  her  from  consideration  by  the  LCDR  selection 
board that convened in 2004.  She alleged that December 1, 2005, is the LCDR date of 
rank she would have had but for the Coast Guard’s administrative error.  Because the 
applicant  failed  to  include  these  new  requests  and  allegations  in  her  original 
application,  the  Coast  Guard  has  not  had  a  chance  to  address  them.    Therefore,  the 
Board will render no findings with respect to these new requests and allegations, but 
will permit the applicant to submit a new application to the Board for the resolution of 
these  new  matters.    In  the  alternative,  the  applicant  may  submit a letter to the Board 
requesting  that  the  new  issues  raised  in  her  response  to  the  advisory  opinion  be 
considered a new application.   
 
 
disputed OER.   

Accordingly, the applicant’s record should be corrected by removing the 

 

5. 

6. 

                                                 
9 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. 

ORDER 

The  application  of  LT  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  her 

 
 
military record is granted in part as follows: 
 
 
Her officer evaluation report for the period June 1, 2000, through May 31, 2001, 
shall be removed from her record and replaced with a report for continuity purposes 
only.   
 

No other relief is granted.    

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Stephen H. Barber 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 

 

 
 
 Eric J. Young