DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2006-065 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
Author: Ulmer, D. 
 
 
This  proceeding  was  conducted  according  to  the  provisions  of  section  1552  of 
title  10  and  section  425  of  title  14  of  the  United  States  Code.    The  application  was 
docketed  on  February  24,  2006,  upon  receipt  of  the  applicant’s  completed  application 
and military records. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  November  21,  2006,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST  

 
 
 The applicant asked the Board to make the following corrections to his military 
record:  remove  the  officer  evaluation  report  (OER)  for  the  period  from  June  1,  2002 
through June 30, 2003 (first disputed OER); remove the regular continuity OER1 for the 
period from July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004 (second disputed OER) and direct that 
the concurrent OER for the same period replace the regular continuity OER; place him 
on the CWO promotion list consistent with his peer group; remove all references to his 
failure of selection for promotion from his record; and reinstate his criminal investigator 
CGIS (Coast Guard Investigation Service) program credentials.  Generally, the applicant 
provided the following overview of his situation: 
 
                                                 
1      A  continuity  OER  is  submitted  in  cases  where  an  OER  is  required,  but  full  documentation  is 
impracticable, impossible to obtain, or does not meet officer evaluation system goals.  Article 10.A.3.c.5. 
of  the  Personnel  Manual.    Subsection  d.  further  states  that  the  supervisor  shall  briefly  describe  the 
reported-on  officers  responsibilities  in  section  2  and  state  the  reason  the  continuity  OER.    All  other 
evaluation areas are left blank with "Not Observed" marked for each dimension.   

regarding 

the  order  and  engaged 

My  personnel  record  includes  a  derogatory OER  that  I  contest  as  unjust 
due  to  gross  inaccuracies,  improper  processing,  and  conflict  of  interest 
held by the supervisor.  The contested OER covers the period [June 1 2002 
to June 30, 2003], while I was assigned as a special agent to CGIS xxxxxx.  
The contested OER has resulted in my failure of selection for promotion 
and it threatens to result in my separation from the Coast Guard.  Judging 
from the many successes I had as a special agent, along with substantial 
positive feedback I had from my chain of command, my peers and agents 
in  partner  agencies,  I  was  at  the  start  of  a  promising  career  in  the  law 
enforcement and investigations specialty.    As a result of being unfairly 
removed  from  my  duties  as  a  special  agent  and  having  the  unjust  OER 
entered into my record, I have been denied the opportunity to serve in the 
specialty.  I was removed from my duties as a special agent for allegedly 
not following an order.   I vigorously contest this allegation because I did 
comply  with  the  order.    I  responded  affirmatively  to  the  RAC  (resident 
agent-in-charge) 
in  normal 
supervisor/subordinate dialogue on the requirement and competing time 
demands.  As it evolved, the RAC rescinded the order before the deadline 
for its competition.  Nonetheless, I completed the necessary coordination 
to ensure the mission requirement was successfully met. 
 
 
The first disputed OER for the period June 1, 2002, to June 30, 2003, was revised 
and  placed  in  the  applicant's  service  record  on  June  18,  2005.    The  revised  OER  was 
marked derogatory and the following statement was added in block 10 as directed by 
the PRRB (Personnel Records Review Board):  "Failed to uphold the CG Core Value of 
Honor, Respect, and Devotion to Duty by blatantly disregarding CG Regulations and 
Policy." 
 
 
The first disputed OER included numerous unfavorable comments as discussed 
later in this decision.  The applicant's marks consisted of 2s in the workplace, judgment, 
and  responsibility  categories  and  marks  of  3  in  the  planning  and  preparedness, 
adaptability,  professional  competence,  looking  out  for  others,  developing  others, 
directing  others,  teamwork,  initiative,  professional  presence  categories.    He  received 
marks of 4 in using resources, results/effectiveness, speaking and listening, evaluations, 
and health and well-being categories.  The applicant received a mark of 5 in writing.   
 
 
In block 10 where the reporting officer described the applicant's ability to assume 
greater leadership roles and responsibilities, the applicant was given a 2.  The reporting 
officer  wrote  that  the  applicant  failed  to  demonstrate  the  level  of  effective  and 
supportive  leadership  expected of  a  commissioned  officer.    He  further  stated that the 
applicant lacked the potential for increased responsibility due to demonstrated failure 
to  carry  out  lawful  orders  from  supervisors  and  his  lack  of  respect  and  trust  for 
superiors  in  his  chain  of  command.    Finally,  the  reporting  officer  wrote  that  the 

applicant "Failed to uphold the CG Core Value of Honor, Respect and Devotion to Duty 
by blatantly disregarding CG Regulations and Policy." 
 

The reviewer for the OER attached comments, in which he fully concurred with 
the supervisor's and reporting officer's evaluation of the applicant's performance.  The 
reviewer did not recommend the applicant's retention as a CGIS special agent, did not 
recommend  him  for  promotion,  and  recommended  that  "a  board  be  convened  to 
consider  revocation  of  [the  applicant's]  commission  based  upon  CG  Core  Value 
violations." 
 
 
The  applicant  submitted  an  addendum  to  the  derogatory  OER  pointing  out 
many of the contentions made to the Board.  Each member of the rating chain endorsed 
the OER by forwarding it without comment.     
 

ALLEGATIONS 

First Disputed OER 
 
 
With  respect  to  the  first  disputed  OER  (June  1,  2002  to  June  30,  2003)  the 
applicant alleged that the Xxxxx office resident agent-in-charge (RAC), who signed the 
OER  as  supervisor  was  not  in  his  published  rating  chain.    The  applicant  stated  that 
Chapter 2.E.2.b. of the Coast Guard Investigations Manual, listed the special agent-in-
charge (SAC) as the supervisor for field units.  He further stated that the SOP Number 
CGIS-xxxxxx  for  the  xxxxxx  region  listed  the  SAC  as  the  supervisor  for  the  CWOs 
assigned to the unit.  (At the time that that rating chain was published the applicant was 
a chief petty officer and was  advanced to CWO2 in June 2002.)  He noted that for the 
reporting period in question the SAC signed as the supervisor for a fellow CWO2 while 
the  RAC  signed  as  his  supervisor.    He  further  noted  that  although  the  Personnel 
Records Review Board (PRRB) obtained a July 31, 2002 email stating that the RAC was 
the rating chain supervisor for all assigned to that office, he was never informed of the 
change.   
 
 
The applicant further alleged that the RAC should have been disqualified from 
serving on his rating chain because upon the applicant's relief from duties he had made 
reports  of  impropriety  against  the  RAC.    In  this  regard,  the  applicant  stated  that  the 
allegations  he  made  against  the  supervisor  consisted  of  poor  management  practices, 
misuse of government vehicles, and a blatant disrespect for the uniformed Coast Guard.  
He  argued  that  since  the  allegations  he  made  against  the  supervisor  questioned  his 
ability as the RAC, the supervisor should have been disqualified because of his personal 
interest  and  conflict.    He  quoted  Article  10.A.2.g.2.b.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  which 
states as follows: 
 

Disqualified includes relief for cause due to misconduct or unsatisfactory 
performance,  being  an  interested  party  to  an  investigation  or  a  court  of 

inquiry, or any other situation in which a personal interest or conflict on 
the  part  of  the  Supervisor,  Reporting  Officer,  or  Reviewer  raises  a 
substantial question as to whether the Reported-on Officer will receive a 
fair, accurate evaluation.    

 
 
The applicant also alleged that his supervisor was a civilian hire from outside the 
Coast  Guard  and  was  not  properly  trained  or  certified  as  a  civilian  OES  marking 
official,  as  required  by  Article  10.A.2.b.2.i.  of  the  Personnel  Manual.    This  provision 
states, "Civilians shall not be assigned to a rating chain before receiving OES training 
certification from Commander, (CGPC-opm) or Commander (CGPC-rpm) and having 
incorporated the OES rating chain responsibilities in their core competencies."  In this 
regard, the applicant stated that the training the supervisor received in September 2002 
was an overview of the OES and lasted only approximately 9 minutes. 
 

The  applicant  asserted  that  the  first  disputed  OER  did  not  provide  a  complete 
picture of his performance for the entire rating period, and that the OER was unfair and 
written to support an unjustified decision to remove him from his investigator duties.  
In  support  of  this  contention,  he  stated  that  there  is  no  mention  in  the  first  disputed 
OER of his participation in the Zone B-125 gasoline barge explosion, which according to 
the applicant was the biggest marine incident of the year in the Xxxxx Captain of the 
Port zone.  He also stated that the OER does not mention his receipt of a Department of 
Justice Certificate of Commendation for his efforts on an environmental pollution case 
or his receipt of the Coast Guard Achievement Medal for his superior performance of 
duty during the terrorist attacks of 9/11. 
 
Applicant's Challenge to Specific Comments in the First Disputed OER 
 

OER  Comment:    In  August  2002,  [the  applicant]  was  placed  on  a  45  day 
probation  period  due  to  his  poor  attitude  and  undermining  of  the  new  office 
supervisor and his practices.  (The applicant responded that on August 13, 2002, two 
months into the evaluation period, he and the ranking military agent were placed on 45-
days  probation.    He  stated  that  he  met  with  the  special  agent-in-charge  (SAC)  of  the 
region  who  could  not  provide  the  applicant  with  any  examples  of  documented 
performance lapses or unsatisfactory performance.  According to the applicant, the SAC 
and  told  the  applicant  that  the  probation  was  not  coming  from  him  and  therefore  he 
could not offer an explanation for it.  (The record indicates that the RAC initiated the 
probation,  which  was  approved  by  the  SAC.)    The  applicant  alleged  that  during  the 
reporting  period  he  spoke  with  the  SAC  about  the  office  dynamics  and  was  given 
positive verbal and documented feedback and told to stick it out and keep performing 
at the same high level.)   
 
 
OER Comment:  The applicant was openly hostile to change and made every 
effort  to  negatively  comment  in  the  presence  of  subordinates,  and  CG  members 

outside  CGIS  on  new  office  expectations  thus  failing  to  promote  good  order  and 
discipline.    (The  applicant  stated  that  if  this  statement  were  true,  he  is  sure  that  he 
would have been counseled regarding such blatant disrespect for authority, yet there is 
no  documented  mention  of  this  behavior.    He  stated  that  he  personally  acquired  and 
delivered moving boxes for the RAC's move into a new residence on his own time and 
at his expense.) 
 
 
OER  Comment:    In  June  2002,  the  applicant  boasted  to  others  that  the 
supervisor  would  not  be  around  long.    (The  applicant  denied  that  he  made  this 
statement.) 
 
 
OER Comment:  The applicant often lacked the tenacity and self confidence to 
make  decisions  and  would  frequently  allow  others  to  take  the  lead,  failing  to 
appreciate  CGIS  authority  and  jurisdiction.    His  disruptive  attitude  negatively 
affected  his  ability  to  carry  out  his  primary  duties.    (The  applicant  stated  that  the 
comment is false and that he conducted numerous investigations across the spectrum of 
Coast  Guard  Investigative  Service  authority and  jurisdiction  to  include  the  following:   
SAR Hoax, Mariner Document Seizure, Forgery, Self Inflicted Gunshot to Coast Guard 
member,  Barge Explosion xxxxxxxxxx, Pollution (Oily Water Separator (OWS) Bypass), 
and  Protective  Service  Operation  during  Commandant's  official  visit  to  xxx  in 
December 2002.) 
 
 
OER  Comment:    In  April  2003,  the  applicant  failed  to  follow  an  order  to 
qualify  2  fellow  agents  for  their  Judgmental  Pistol  Certification  (JPC)  on  baseless 
grounds.    His  insubordinate  behavior  caused  his  co-workers  to  make  arrangements 
with  an  outside  CG  command  in  order  to  complete  a  mandatory  training 
requirement.  His lack of good judgment, poor leadership, and inadequate devotion 
to duty led to his removal from his primary duties with the CGIS program on May 
15, 2003.  (The applicant stated that on April 25, 2003, he received an email request from 
the RAC to administer the pistol test before April 30, 2003. He replied the next day, a 
Saturday, that he would not be able to administer the test until April 30th because of  
work  commitments.    He  stated  that  he  had  an  enormous  amount  of  evidence  seized 
during  the  execution  of  three  search  warrants  earlier  that  needed  to  be  processed 
expeditiously because some of the evidence was subject to a potential defense discovery 
request.  The applicant stated that on Monday, April 28, 2003, the RAC informed him 
that he was "no longer qualified to conduct JPC for our office, so we will get someone 
else identified and trained."  The applicant stated that he contacted another units JPC 
administrator to confirm availability to qualify agents before the end of April 2003.   
 
 
The  applicant  submitted  copies  of  the  emails.  The  one  from  the  RAC  to  the 
applicant,  dated  April  25,  2003,  read  as  follows:    "[R]  and  [N]  need  to  get  their  JPC 
completed  before  30  April.    Let  them  know  what  day/time  you  want  them  before 
Wednesday to knock it out."  The applicant  responded by email to the RAC with the 

following:    "Not  going  to  be  able  to  get  to that  before  Wednesday.    I  am  going  to  be 
extremely busy with access to the barge debris field becoming a issue that will be very 
time consuming.  Not to mention the evidence taken last week needs to be accessed for 
content and copies for [B] made as needed."  The applicant further stated the following 
in the email: 
 

Regarding  the  conversation  we  had  two  weeks  ago,  has  anyone  been 
identified in the region who has actually been trained in the use of force as 
an instructor.   These folks need to be identified as soon as possible.  Be 
aware that the Judgmental Course has a lot of articulation written into it 
and I think it is a good idea that the troops be advised to make sure they 
are familiar with the verbiage associated with the use of force policy.  

 
On  April  28,  2003,  the  RAC  responded  to  the  applicant's  email  stating  the  two 
 
agents in need of JPC would get it completed by someone else and that the supervisor 
had informed xxxxx that the applicant was no longer qualified to conduct JPC training 
for the office and that someone else would be identified and trained.   
 

OER  Comment:    His  poor  attitude  significantly  affected  the  morale  in  the 
office  and  forced  divisions  between  agents,  thus  affecting  the  overall  operational 
effectiveness  of  the  office.    (The  applicant  stated  that  this  comment  is  vague  and 
unsupported.    He  stated  that  he  was  never  received  any  feedback  in  this  area  even 
during the probationary period.)   
 

OER  Comment:    The  applicant  rarely  assisted  other  agents  in  the  office  and 
would offer guidance as an experienced agent only when asked.  An experienced and 
senior military agent, he failed to take an  active role and integrate himself in daily 
operations  of  the  office.    (The  applicant  stated  that  he  directly  managed  12  Reserve 
Special Agents, scheduling their drills and ADTs to match the operational tempo of the 
RAO  and  he  increased  reserve  productivity.    He  stated  that  he  provided  computer 
assistance  and  support  to  all  agents  increasing  agent  productivity  and  efficiency.    He 
stated that he also provided routine troubleshooting of computer problems to eliminate 
the time consuming task of engaging Electronics Support Detachment to repair minor 
faults.)   
 
 
OER Comment:  Overall, the applicant showed very poor leadership traits by 
not  supporting  and  demonstrating  trust  and  confidence  in  his  superiors  and  not 
using  the  chain  of  command  properly.    (The  applicant  stated  that  this  comment  is 
vague and unsupported by examples of fact.) 
 
 
OER Comment:   When sent TAD, the applicant  was ordered to  report in CG 
Uniform on May 19, 2003 to XO of TAD unit instead the applicant failed to follow the 
order and reported in civilian attire.  (The applicant stated that he had a conversation 

with the Deputy on May 15, 2003 and was told that civilian attire would be acceptable 
for reporting.  He indicated that he needed to purchase new uniforms because he could 
not find an acceptable uniform of the day among his stored items after over two years 
serving out of uniform.) 
 
 
OER  Comment:    Three  co-workers  advised  the  chain  of  command  that  the 
applicant alluded to the conflict between himself and the supervisor as a game and if 
the supervisor was to initiate action against him he would not go down alone.   The 
applicant voiced to a co-worker that he intended to accomplish  the training on JPC 
and that he wanted to see how upset the supervisor would get.  The applicant had the 
potential  to  become  a  highly  effective  investigator  and  leader  in  the  CGIS 
organization  had  it  not  been  for  his  poor  attitude  and  disruptive  behavior.    (The 
applicant stated as follows:  "To take allegations such as these, stow them away and use 
them without first confronting the individual involved again reflects upon the abilities 
of  the  supervisor  and/or  the  truth  of  these  allegations."    Working  for  this  supervisor 
was  no  game.  Others  and  myself  were  constantly  threatened  individually  and 
collectively with relief of duty.  One agent had already been relieved and the supervisor 
made no secret that a fellow CWO or I were next.   "The Supervisor made it abundantly 
clear that he would 'fire' anyone who got out of line.  I would certainly like to ask these 
three co-workers when and where these discussions took place.")  
 
 
OER Comment:  The applicant failed to use the appropriate chain of command 
to  voice  his  discontent  and  instead  chose  to  conduct  himself  in  a  manner  not 
consistent  with  the  proper  conduct  of  an  officer.    When  sent  TAD,  the  applicant 
further demonstrated his inability to adhere to CGIS policy contained in Article 7-M, 
COMDTINST  M5527.1B    (CGIS  Investigation  manual)  on  the  procedures  to  follow 
for  an  internal  affairs  investigation  when  concerns  arose  involving  his  perceived 
unethical misconduct of other agents.  The applicant revealed via e-mail to SAC, xx 
Region  that  he  collected  notes  related  to  his  supervisor  and  co-workers  activities 
dating  back  to  October  2002,  and  audio  recordings.    Over  an  extended  period,  the 
applicant  made  audio  recordings  between  himself  and  other  agents  in  the  office 
without their consent in direct violation of CGIS policy contained in Article 7-V of 
COMDTINST  M5527.1B.    The  applicant's  self  serving  and  illegal  audio  recordings 
were  conducted  without  the  approval  of  his  chain  of  command.    His  supervisor 
directed him to turn in his office keys prior to departure on his administrative TAD 
assignment.  In a final act of insubordination, he stated to his supervisor "take it easy 
big boy" and left without surrendering his keys.  (The applicant stated that he did use 
the  chain  of  command  by  complaining  to  the  SAC,  who  told  him  that  the  RAC  was 
young and inexperienced and should be given time.  "I did not make recordings over an 
extended period of time.  Given the lack of support from the chain of command, I did 
attempt to capture on tape the disrespectful tone and statements of the RAC.  I did not 
persist in this and only taped for a very brief period.  Upon my departure, I left the tape 
with  CGIS  on  my  own  initiative.    The  statement  regarding  the  keys  is  yet  another 

fabrication to fill empty space in this OER.  I did in fact return my keys as witnessed by 
the agent I was working with at the time.")  
 
Second Disputed OER 
 
 
In  objecting  to  the  regular  continuity  OER  (July  1,  2003  to  June  30,  2004),  the 
applicant again alleged that the supervisor was disqualified from serving in his rating 
chain.    He  further  alleged  that  the  following  comments  in  block  2.  of  the  OER  are  in 
violation  of  Article  10.A.4.f.11  of  the  Personnel  Manual2  because  they  refer  to 
performance that occurred during the previous reporting period: 
 

SPECIAL  AGENT.    Administratively  assigned  TAD  to  CG    Xxxxx  on 
2003/05/19, 365 days not observed this reporting period.  As a result of 
misconduct  relating  to  [the  applicant's]  unauthorized  recording  of 
conversations  of  co-workers,  member's  command  has  made,  during  this 
period, a contemporaneous management decision not to allow his return 
to CGIS Xxxxx.  Command has concluded that it is in the best interest of 
the  Coast  Guard  that  [the  applicant]  be  permanently  transferred  from 
CGIS Xxxxx and re-assigned to a non-CGIS position.   

 
The applicant stated that it was the intent of his command not to have him return 
 
to duty at CGIS at the point of his removal from duty as a special agent.  As evidence of 
that  intent,  the  applicant  noted  that  the  first  disputed  OER  showed  49  days  of  non-
observed  performance  for  "other  reasons." 
  He  also  noted  that  the  reviewer 
recommended  that  the  applicant  not  be  retained  as  a  special  agent.    In  addition,  he 
argued that the two excellent OERS he received in his TAD assignment are tarnished by 
the  alleged  improper  comments  in  block  2  of  the  second  disputed  OER  and  his 
continuance in a TAD assignment. The applicant complained that he has been serving 
in a TAD assignment for approximately three years. 
 
Statements in Support of the Applicant 
 

corroborated 

the  applicant's  allegation 

1.  A senior chief investigator who worked with the applicant during the period 
supervisor's 
in  question 
mismanagement  of  the  office  created  a  demoralizing,  negative,  unwholesome,  and 
threatening atmosphere.  He further contended that the supervisor had given free rein 
to certain individuals who proceeded to unfairly attack and undermine the applicant.  
"This was because of their jealously for the commendable job the applicant did and the 
praise  he  received."      According  to  the  senior  chief,  the  supervisor  appointed 
professional  "fault  finders"  to  help  him  carry  out  and  maintain  control  of  the 

that 

the 

                                                 
2      This  provision  of  the  Manual  states  the  rating  chain  shall  not  discuss  an  officer's  performance  or 
conduct that occurred outside the reporting period.   

threatening  atmosphere  that  he  had  created  from  the  very  first  staff  meeting  he 
conducted.  The senior chief stated that as leverage the supervisor constantly threatened 
to end and/or not renew periods of extended active duty, using active duty contracts as 
"carrots" dangled in exchange for loyalty and blind devotion." 
 

2.  A chief who worked with the applicant from April 2001 until May 2003 wrote 
that  based  upon  his  21  years  as  a  criminal  investigator,  he  found  the  applicant  to  be 
exceptional  both  as  a  Coast  Guard  officer  and  as  a  criminal  investigator.    He  further 
stated the following: 
 

I must say that I was shocked and confused when the applicant informed 
me  he  was  no  longer  an  agent  with  CGIS.    I  was  even  more  confused 
when  I  learned  of  the  reason  why.        Having  worked  along  side  the 
applicant for hundreds of hours, it was inconceivable that this individual 
could be relieved of duty for not administering a judgmental pistol.  Our 
workload was so great that during the month this request took place, that 
together we had logged over 160 hours of overtime.  I was present when 
the applicant contacted xxxxx JPC Administrator . . . in person to ensure 
the agents requiring the training could get it from xxxxxx personnel before 
the expiration of their qual[ification].    

  

3.    The  applicant  provided  a  statement  from  another  CWO2  who worked  with 
him  at  the  unit  and  who  was  placed  on  probation  twice  during  the  reporting  period.  
He stated that neither his failure to be selected for CWO3 nor that of the applicant was 
due to performance issues but rather due to a personality conflict with the RAC.  He 
stated  that  prior  to  the  arrival  of  the  RAC  he  was  a  high  performer,  just  like  the 
applicant.    The  CWO2  stated  that  he  was  accused  of  going  to  the  movies  during  the 
work day when in fact he was working on a significant case that resulted in the longest 
jail sentence ever given to a hoax caller.  Further, he stated that the RAC accused him of 
asking for a letter of appreciation from the Secret Service.  This CWO2 stated that  
 

I was assigned with the applicant during the entire time he was detailed 
to  the  RO  Xxxxx.    The  applicant  was  constantly  [called]  upon  to  assist 
other  agents  in  the  daily  performance  of  their  duties  and  he  did  so 
eagerly.  The applicant was responsible for a 12-person reserve component 
comprised of a wide variety of civilian law enforcement personnel.  The 
applicant  handled  these  reserves  in  a  very  professional  manner  and 
utilized  their  knowledge  to  the  maximum  extent.    The  applicant  and  I 
were involved assisting rescuers after the attacks on 9/11.  The applicant 
commandeered  donated  water  trucks  and  we  delivered  thousands  of 
bottles of water to the rescue workers during the night of 9/11.    

 
 

Personnel Records Review Board (PRRB) 
 
 
Prior  to  filing  his  application  with  the  Board,  the  applicant  asked  the  PRRB  to 
remove the first disputed OER for the period June 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003 from 
his  record,  or  in  the  alternative,  mark  it  as  derogatory  so  that  he  could  submit  an 
addendum.  The allegations made before the PRRB were similar to those made before 
this  Board.    The  PRRB  denied  the  applicant's  request  for  removal  of  the  OER  but 
ordered it to be marked derogatory.  Of particular note, the PRRB made the following 
findings: 
 

3. 
  The  applicant  provided  contradictory  and  troubling  evidence 
regarding his request to have the following OER comment removed:  "In 
April  2003,  [the  applicant]  failed  to  follow  an  order  to  qualify  2  fellow 
agents for their Judgmental Pistol Certification (JPC) on baseless grounds."  
Applicant requested redaction of the comment due to his lack of CGJUFE, 
CGJPC,  and  CGSAI  certification  and  training.  [T]he  applicant  was 
required to have written certification by the command prior to conducting 
CGJUF  training  .  .  .  [and]  the  applicant  was  required  to  have  attended 
CGSAI training prior to conduct CGJUFE training.  No such certifications 
were found in applicant's PDR.  In addition applicant states that he never 
received written certification by CGIS as a CGJUFE administrator, nor has 
he  completed  required  CGSAI  training    .  .  .  However  [in  another 
document] the applicant states that he voluntarily conducted Use of Force 
certification  training  at  three  separate  units  to  relieve  the  RAO  xxxxx  of 
that task.  These contradictions are particularly troubling.  Applicant held 
himself  out  as  qualified  to  conduct  the  training  in  question  and  sought 
credit  for  doing  so  on  his  own  time.    Based  on  this,  it  was  entirely 
reasonable for his supervisor to believe applicant was doing so within the 
bounds of Coast Guard regulations.  When Applicant decided to disobey 
the order to provide additional training, it was incumbent upon applicant 
to  advise  his  command  of  his  reason  for  refusing  to  obey  the  order.  
Applicant  did  not  do  so.    According  to  his  Supervisor,  Applicant  never 
provided  any  articulate  reason  for  his  refusal  to  train  other  agents  as 
ordered.    Applicant  certainly  never  told  his  Supervisor  that  he  was  not 
qualified to conduct the training.  Applicant cannot now offer a post-hoc 
rationalization for his failure to obey what was on its face a lawful order. 
 
[T]he Block 3 OER comment, "His lack of good judgment, poor leadership, 
and inadequate devotion to duty led to his removal from primary duties 
with  the  CGIS  program  on  15  May  2003"    makes  the  OER  a  derogatory 
report.    The  applicant  was  not  afforded  the  opportunity  to  comment  on 
his  performance  and/or  conduct  through  an  addendum.    All  other 

The PRRB made the following recommendations: 

comments are sufficiently supported and in the spirit of the OES (officer 
evaluation system).   
 
 
 
1.  Grant Applicant's request for relief by amending his OER.  Recommend 
the unit resubmit the revised OER as a Derogatory report per procedures 
outlined in Article 10.A.4.h. 
 
2.    Ensure  the  necessary  paperwork  is  generated  in  order  to  certify  [the 
RAC]  as  qualified  to  serve  as  a  supervisor  in  the  OES.    [RAC's] 
certification should indicate the earliest date upon which [the RAC] was 
so qualified.    
 
3.  Recommend the unit incorporate a breach of core values statement in 
block 10 of the revised Derogatory OER. 
 
4. 
  Recommend  the  unit  conduct  an  administrative  investigation 
concerning  the  circumstances  of  Applicant's  providing  training  without 
proper credential and subsequent failure to inform his command when he 
discovered this error. 
 
5.  Grant no other relief.   

The  Deputy  Director  of  Personnel  Management  approved 

 
 
recommendations on April 15, 2005.   
  

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

the  PRRB 

 
 
On July 3, 2006, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 
an advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny the applicant’s request.  The 
JAG  adopted  the  facts  and  analysis  provided  by  the  Commander,  Coast  Guard 
Personnel  Command  (CGPC)  and  asked  the  Board  to  accept  them  as  the  advisory 
opinion. 
 
 
CGPC stated that there was an official change to the applicant's rating chain on 
July 31, 2002.  On this date, an email from special agent R to special agent D and SSA M 
stated that the supervisor had changed from the SAC to the RAC.  The RAC signed as 
supervisor  on  the  applicant's  OER.    CGPC,  quoting  the  reviewer  stated  as  follows:  
"[T]he  Coast  Guard  Investigative  Service 
.  was  undergoing  a  significant 
reorganization  during  that  time  period  and,  although  the  immediate  changes  to  all 
publications were not promulgated to document the on-going changes, the organization 

. 

 

. 

would  be  'at  a  standstill  if  this  technicality  were  allowed  to  prevent  a  designated 
supervisor from rating his or her subordinate.'"  
 
CGPC  stated  that  the  reporting  officer  and  reviewer  stated  that  the  supervisor 
 
demonstrated the requisite skills and experience to fairly evaluate military and civilian 
personnel  assigned  to  the  Xxxxx  CGIS  office,  and  noted  that  the  failure  to  certify  the 
supervisor's OES training was an administrative oversight.  CGPC stated that there was 
an inquiry into the applicant's allegations of impropriety against the supervisor and no 
evidence was found to substantiate them.   
 
 
CGPC stated that the OER for the period July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004 was 
prepared by the supervisor, validated by CGPC and entered into the official record on 
January 18, 2005.  The concurrent OER for the same time period was prepared by Xxxxx  
xxxxxxxxxx and validated by CGPC and entered into the official record on November 
22, 2004.3   
 
 
pertinent details of each are discussed below. 
 

CGPC  obtained  sworn  statements  from  each  member  of  the  rating  chain.    The 

1.  The supervisor addressed the applicant's allegation that the supervisor should 
have  been  removed  from  the  rating  chain  because  of  the  applicant's  allegations  of 
malfeasance against the supervisor.  The supervisor responded that since the applicant's 
probation and disciplinary problems occurred before his removal from duty as a CGIS 
agent  there  was  no  basis  for  the  supervisor's  recusal.    The  supervisor  stated  that  the 
allegations were made by the applicant upon his removal and were found to have no 
merit.   
 

The  supervisor  stated  that  the  applicant  was  removed  from  duty  because  he 
broke  a  major  tenet  of  USCG  Core  Values  and  professional  behavior  expected  of  a 
federal  law  enforcement  officer.    In  this  regard,  he  secretly  audio-taped  his  fellow 
agents in hope of getting information that could lead to my dismissal.  He noted that 
the  applicant  refused  to  obey  a  direct  lawful  order  to  conduct  JPC  training  as  the 
supervisor directed via e-mail and face-to-face.   
 

The  supervisor  stated  that  almost  immediately  upon  his  arrival,  the  applicant 
began a campaign to undermine his policies and vocalize his extreme dissatisfaction to 

                                                 
3 Article 10.A.3.c.2. of the Personnel Manual defines a concurrent OER as a report submitted in addition 
to a regular or special OER.  A Criterion for the submission of a concurrent OER is the performance of 
temporary assigned duty (TAD) away from the permanent station for at least 60 consecutive days while 
being observed by a senior other than the regular reporting officer.  This provision tasks the applicant's 
permanent  unit  with  the  responsibility  for  maintaining  continuity  through  submission  of  regular  or 
special OERs.   (When this occurs, a member will have both a regular OER, normally performance is not 
observed and a concurrent with observed performance.) 

subordinates.    He  stated  that  many  of  the  applicant's  complaints  resulted  from  the 
supervisor's new office policy for core hours and dress and appearance requirements.  
He  indicated  that  prior  to  his  arrival  the  office  had  virtually  no  management  or 
leadership. 
 

2.  The reporting officer wrote in his sworn statement that the recommendations 
of the independent PRRB resulted in a revision of the applicant's OER to further reflect 
the derogatory nature of the report and to include his breach of the Coast Guard Core 
Values.  The reporting officer stated that the supervisor was qualified to serve on the 
rating  chain  and  that  he  had  received  the  requisite  OES  training.    He  stated  that  the 
applicant's inability to adhere to the Coast Guard Core Values of Honor, Respect, and 
Devotion  to  duty  should  cast  serious  doubt  as  to  his  ability  to  serve  as  an  effective 
military officer.   
 

3.  The reviewer stated in a sworn statement that he believed that the supervisor 
was qualified to serve as reviewer in the OES system.  He stated that his staff reported 
to  him  that  the  applicant  was  consistently  insubordinate  to  his  new  supervisor,  and 
engaged  in  nonconsensual  recording  of  internal  officer  conversations,  allegedly,  as  a 
means  to  defend  himself  against  other  unspecified  allegations.    The  reviewer  further 
stated as follows: 
 

I was so concerned about the applicant's behavior toward his supervisor 
that I considered whether the facts established . . . provided a basis for a 
command-directed  mental  health  evaluation    .  .  .  I  didn't  want  someone 
with possible mental health issues doing harm to others or himself, so he 
was  asked  to  get  a  voluntary  evaluation  from  EAP  and  a  mental  health 
specialist,  which  he  did  on  his  own.    Essentially,  [the  applicant]  simply 
refused  to  develop  a  positive  working  relationship  with  his  new 
supervisor, which affected his performance.   So in my opinion, the OER 
should stand.   

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 

On August 1, 2006, the Board received the applicant's reply to the views of the 

Coast Guard.   He provided the following comment: 

 
I  was  never  asked  to  engage  the  Coast  Guard  Employee  Assistance 
Program (EAP) to address perceived mental health issues by any member 
of the Coast Guard.  I immediately engaged the EAP at both Xxxxx and 
xxxxxxx  to  address  my  situation  solely  as  related  to  my  removal  from 
duty.  Coercive threats made when asked to voluntarily resign from CGIS, 
specifically  to  "think  of  my  family"  and  "go  quietly  or  have  my  career 
damaged by a bad OER", caused me to seek advice through EAP.   

 

I  have  never  in  my  20-year  career  (or  my  life)  sought  or  received  care, 
evaluation,  or  treatment,  from  any  member  of  the  mental  health 
profession.   

 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 
 
The  Board  makes  the  following  findings  and  conclusions  on  the  basis  of  the 
applicant's  military  record  and  submissions,  the  Coast  Guard's  submissions,  and 
applicable law: 
 

1. The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of 

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

 
2. 

The applicant requested an oral hearing before the Board.  The Chairman, 
acting pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.31, denied the request and recommended disposition 
of the case without a hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommendation. 
 
 
3.    The applicant is correct that the rating chain as published on February 2002 
designated the SAC as the supervisor.  However, an email dated July 2002 addressed to 
a special agent other than the applicant stated that the rating chain had been modified 
to designate the RAC Xxxxx position as the supervisor for individuals assigned to RAO 
Xxxxx.  There is no evidence if and when this change to the rating chain was published 
to the unit.  However, even though the modification to the rating chain may not have 
been published widely, the applicant could not have been misled or confused as to the 
identity of his supervisor.  In this regard, the Board notes that the supervisor placed the 
applicant on probation in August 2002 and his name was in fact listed on the counseling 
document as the supervisor, which the applicant acknowledged.  The applicant did not 
challenge the designation of his supervisor at the time of placement on probation and in 
fact did not do so until he received the derogatory OER.  Accordingly, the Board finds 
that  even  though  the  modification  to  the  rating  chain  may  not  have  been  published 
timely and widely, the Board concludes that the applicant knew that the RAC was his 
rating chain supervisor as early as August 2002.   
 
 
4.  Article 10.A.2.b.i. of the Personnel Manual states that commanding officers are 
to ensure that civilian employees who must perform the duties of either a supervisor or 
reporting  officer  have  obtained  formal  training  from  Commander  CGPC.    The 
provisions  further  states  that  civilians  shall  not  be  assigned  to  a  rating  chain  before 
receiving OES training certification from CGPC and having incorporated the OES rating 
chain  responsibilities  in  their  core  competencies.    In  his  statement  to  CGPC,  the 
supervisor  stated  that  he  did  not  receive  OES  training  until  September  2002  and  the 
PRRB admitted that he had not received his OER training certification document when 
it  issued  its  decision  in  April  2005.    The  Coast  Guard  appears  to  have  violated  the 

Personnel  Manual  by  assigning  the  RAC  as  the  applicant's  rating  chain  supervisor 
without having certified his OES training. The PRRB found this to be an administrative 
oversight.  Failing to complete the paper certification of the training may have been an 
oversight,  but  the  designation  of  the  RAC  as  the  applicant's  supervisor  before  he 
received  any  OES  training  appears  to  be  a  violation  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  which 
states that civilians shall not be assigned to a rating chain before receiving OES training 
certification.  In this regard, the Board notes that the RAC was designated supervisor in 
July 2002 and did not receive OES training until September 2002.  The question for the 
Board  is  whether  this  violation  of  the  Manual  was  prejudicial  to  the  applicant.    The 
Board finds that the applicant has submitted insufficient evidence to show harm. The 
Board notes that the supervisor received OES training approximately six weeks after his 
designation to the rating chain and well in advance of the end of the reporting cycle on 
June 30, 2003.     
 
 
5.    The  applicant  has  not  proved  that  the  supervisor  should  have  been 
disqualified from the rating chain.  Although the applicant alleged that the supervisor 
had  engaged  in  some  impropriety  during  the  rating  period,  the  SAC  of  the  xxxxxxxx 
region  closed  the  matter  after  interviewing  both  the  applicant  and  the  supervisor  on 
June 12, 2003. Mere allegations against a rating chain member are insufficient to cause a 
disqualification  under  Article  10.A.2.g.2.b.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  which  states  as 
follows: 
 

Disqualified includes relief for cause due to misconduct or unsatisfactory 
performance,  being  an  interested  party  to  an  investigation  or  a  court  of 
inquiry, or any other situation in which a personal interest or conflict on 
the  part  of  the  Supervisor,  Reporting  Officer,  or  Reviewer  raises  a 
substantial question as to whether the Reported-on Officer will receive a 
fair, accurate evaluation.    
 
 
There is no evidence in the record that the supervisor was relieved for cause, was 
an  interested  party  to  an  investigation,  or  was  in  any  other  situation  that  raised  a 
question  as  to  whether  he  could  fairly  evaluate  the  applicant.    The  Board  notes  that 
allegations  were  not  made  against  the  supervisor  until  after  the  applicant  had  been 
relieved of his duties on May 15, 2003. 
 
 
6.   The applicant complained that the first disputed OER did not include any of 
the  twenty-seven  pages  of  accomplishments  that  he  provided  to  the  supervisor.  
However 10.A.4.c.4.d. of the Personnel Manual states that the supervisor shall include 
comments citing specific aspects of the Reported-on Officer's performance and behavior 
for each mark that deviates from a 4.  The rating chain complied with the regulation by 
providing  comments  to  support  the  below  average  marks  of  2  and  3  and  the  above 
average mark of 5 in writing.  
 

 
7.      The  applicant  offered  challenges  to  each  of  the  negative  comments  in  the 
OER.  However only one comment merits further discussion, which is the comment that 
"[the applicant] failed to follow an order to qualify 2 fellow agents for their Judgmental 
Pistol  Certification  (JPC)  on  baseless  grounds.  His  insubordinate  behavior  caused  his 
co-workers to make arrangements with an outside CG command in order to complete a 
mandatory  training  requirement."    The  applicant  denied  that  he  refused  to  do  the 
training and argued that he suggested another date on when he could do the training.  
However the applicant's email response to the supervisor's request did not suggest an 
alternative date and stated flatly that the applicant was not able to do the training by 
the date designated by the supervisor.   The applicant also argued that he was not able 
to  do  the  training  by  the  date  requested  because  of  his  workload.    Presumably,  the 
supervisor who had overall responsibility for management of the office was aware of 
the applicant's workload when he told the applicant to do the training by a date certain.  
The applicant should have obeyed the order from the supervisor.     
 
 
The  Board  notes  that  the  applicant's  reply  email  to  the  supervisor  about  the 
training  also  contained  the  comment  "Regarding  the  conversation  we  had  two  weeks 
ago, has anyone been identified in the region who has actually been trained in the use of 
force as an instructor," suggests that an earlier conversation had occurred between the 
applicant and supervisor on this matter. The supervisor's reply email confirms that an 
earlier conversation about use of force instructors had occurred because the supervisor 
commented that he had informed XXXX that the applicant was no longer qualified to 
conduct  the  training.    The  Board  is  unable  to  tell  from  these  emails  whether  the 
applicant was refusing to do the training because of concerns about his qualifications or 
lack  thereof.    Therefore,  the  Board  finds  the  evidence  insufficient  to  prove  the 
inaccuracy of the comment that the applicant failed to follow an order to qualify fellow 
agents.   
 
 
8.  The applicant also complained about the fact that the OER does not mention 
his  receipt  of  a  national  Department  of  Justice  Certificate  of  Commendation  for  his 
efforts on environmental pollution case involving the Xxxxx or his receipt of the Coast 
Guard  Achievement  Medal  for  his  superior  performance  of  duty  during  the  terrorist 
attacks of 9/11.  The applicant's Achievement Medal is dated August 2002 and is filed 
in the applicant's military record.  Article 10.A.4.c.3. of the Personnel Manual allows for 
the attachment of personal awards to an OER during the period received, even if the 
performance  cited  does  not  relate  to  the  period.    The  Achievement  Award  is  dated 
August 12, 2002, but there is no indication in the record when it was actually delivered 
to the applicant.  Nor is there any evidence that the applicant called his receipt of the 
award  to  the  attention  of  his  supervisor.    Therefore,  the  evidence  on  this  issue  is 
insufficient to establish an error on the part of the supervisor.  Moreover, any error that 
may have existed by failing to attach the Achievement Medal to the OER for the period 
June  1  2002  to  June  30,  2003  is  considered  harmless  since  the  Achievement  Medal  is 
properly filed in the applicant's military record.  The applicant has not established that 

the Department of Justice Certificate of Commendation is the type of award that could 
be  attached  to  the  OER.      Accordingly,  the  Board  finds  no  error  or  injustice  in  not 
attaching the Justice Certificate to the first disputed OER.   
 
 
9.  The  applicant  challenged  the  content  of  the  first  disputed  OER  before  the 
PRRB  and  requested  its  removal  from  his  record  or  in  the  alternative  to  have  it 
amended by marking it as a derogatory OER so that he would have the right to submit 
an  addendum,  which  should  have  been  done  initially  since  the  OER  documented  the 
applicant's  removal  from  his  primary  duty.    See  Article  10.A.4.h.1.  of  the  Personnel 
Manual. The Board questions whether the PRRB in telling the rating chain to mark the 
OER as derogatory committed an error and/or injustice by also ordering the reporting 
officer  to  include  a  comment  that  the  applicant  had  breached  the  Core  Values  of  the 
Coast Guard in the block 10. of the OER.  Apparently, the reporting officer revised the 
sentence "The applicant has failed to uphold any of the CG core values" to read in the 
revised OER "Failed to uphold the CG Core Value of Honor, Respect, Devotion to Duty 
by  blatantly  disregarding  CG  Regulations  and  Policy."4    The  Board  further  notes  that 
the reviewer added additional negative comments to the reviewer comment page after 
the  PRRB  directed  the  rating  chain  to  mark  the  OER  as  derogatory.    The  reviewer 
apparently  added  the  following  comments  to  his  page  after  the  PRRB  review:  "Not 
recommended for retention as a Special Agent.  Not recommended for promotion with 
his peers.  Recommend a board be convened to consider revocation of his commission 
based upon CG Core Value Violations."   
 
The  reporting  officer  acknowledged  in  his  statement  to  CGPC  that  the  PRRB 
 
"recommendation  . . . resulted in a revision of the applicant's OER to further reflect the 
derogatory  nature  of  the  report  and  to  include  his  breach  of  the  Coast  Guard  Core 
Values."  The Board finds nothing in the PRRB instruction that specifically prohibits it 
from adding to an OER.  However to do so without the request of the applicant appears 
to  be  an 
is  prejudicial. 
Commandant  Instruction  1070.10C  (PRRB  Instruction)  states  that  the  purpose  of  the 
PRRB is to recommend appropriate action on applications for correction or relief from 
error  in  the  records  of  Coast  Guard  Personnel.    The  additional  derogatory  language 
expressed  the  sentiment  of  the  members  of  the  PRRB,  who  were  not  members  of  the 
rating chain.  Although the additional language was a PRRB recommendation, once it 
was  approved  it  became  an  order  to  the  rating  chain  to  add  the  language.    If  the 
Personnel  Manual  prohibits  a  reporting  officer  from  directing  a  supervisor  and  the 
reviewer from directing a reporting officer on how to change an OER that is returned, it 
would be a contradiction of those principals to allow the PRRB to order changes to an 
OER, unless such changes are at the request of the applicant.  The Board will not decide 

injustice,  particularly  when  the  additional 

language 

                                                 
4   The administrative Investigation into the applicant's misconduct contained a copy of what the Board 
believed to be the original OER.   The reviewer signed the original OER on January 20, 2004 and he signed 
the revised OER on July 13, 2005.   

the  issue  of  whether  the  additional  PRRB  language  or  the  additional  reviewer 
comments are in error or unjust because the applicant did not raise the issue and the 
Coast Guard did not address it.   However, the Board would entertain a request from 
the applicant for further consideration on this issue should he present it to the Board, 
but cautions that further review of the issue may not result in a grant of relief. 
 
 
10.  With respect to the second disputed OER, which is a regular non-observed 
OER for continuity purposes for the period July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004, the applicant 
complained  that  the  comments  below  violated  Article  10.A.4.f.11  of  the  Personnel 
Manual because they refer to performance that occurred during the previous reporting 
period: 
 

SPECIAL  AGENT.    Administratively  assigned  TAD  to  CG  Xxxxx  on 
2003/05/19, 365 days not observed this reporting period.  As a result of 
misconduct  relating  to  [the  applicant's]  unauthorized  recording  of 
conversations  of  co-workers,  member's  command  has  made,  during  this 
period, a contemporaneous management decision not to allow his return 
to CGIS Xxxxx.  Command has concluded that it is in the best interest of 
the  Coast  Guard  that  [the  applicant]  be  permanently  transferred  from 
CGIS Xxxxx and re-assigned to a non-CGIS position. 

 
 
The  Board  notes  the  Coast  Guard's  failure  to  address  the  issue  of  whether  the 
comments violate the Personnel Manual.  However, the Board agrees with the applicant 
and  finds  that  the  date  of  his  TAD  assignment  on  May  19,  2003  and  the  misconduct 
mentioned  in  block  2.  occurred  during  the  pervious  reporting  period,  and  therefore 
violates the Personnel Manual.  To allow it to remain as part of the explanation for the 
submission of the regular continuity OER serves to punish the applicant twice for the 
same offense.  The applicant's misconduct is thoroughly discussed in the previous OER.  
Therefore, block 2. of the second disputed OER should be rewritten as follows:   
 

SPECIAL  AGENT.    TAD  to  CG  Xxxxx,  365  days  not  observed  this 
reporting period. During this period, command has concluded that it is in 
the  best  interest  of  the  Coast  Guard  that  [the  applicant]  be  permanently 
transferred from CGIS Xxxxx and re-assigned to a non-CGIS position. 

 
 
11. Having found error in the regular continuity OER, the Board must determine 
whether  the  applicant's  2005  and  2006  failures  of  selection  for  promotion  to  CWO3 
should be removed.   In deciding this issue the Board applies the test in Engels v. United 
States, 678 F.2d 173, 175-76 (Ct. Cl. 1982).  In Engels, the Court of Claims held that, if the 
Board  finds  that  an  officer’s  record  contained  an  error  when  it  was  reviewed  by  a 
selection  board,  the  Board  should  decide  whether  the  officer’s  failure  of  selection  for 
promotion  should  be  removed  by  answering  two  questions:    “First,  was  [the  appli-
cant’s] record prejudiced by the errors in the sense that the record appears worse than it 

would in the absence of the errors?  Second, even if there was some such prejudice, is it 
unlikely that [the applicant] would have been promoted in any event?”  
 
12.    The  Board  finds  that  the  applicant's  record  did  not  appear  worse  with  the 
 
mentioning of the restricted comments in the second disputed OER.  The Board further 
finds that even if there was some slight prejudice, it is unlikely that the applicant would 
have  been  promoted  in  any  event.    In  this  regard,  the  Board  notes  that  the  previous 
OER discusses the applicant's behavior and misconduct at length, recommends against 
promoting him, and recommends the revocation of his commission.   In light of these 
damaging  assessments,  it  was  unlikely that the  applicant  would  have  been  promoted 
even  if  the  regular  continuity  OER  had  not  mentioned  the  misconduct  in  block  2. 
(description of duties).   
 
13.    The  Board  has  considered  all  of  the  applicant's  contentions.    Those  not 
 
discussed within the  Findings and Conclusions are considered to be without merit or 
not dispositive of the issues in this case.   
 
 
of comments from the regular continuity OER discussed in Finding 10 above. 
 
 

 
14.  Accordingly, the applicant's request should be denied except for the removal 

 
 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his  military 
record  is  denied,  except  that  the  comments  in  block  2  (description  of  duties)  on  the 
regular continuity OER for the period July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004 shall be rewritten as 
follows: 
 

SPECIAL  AGENT.    TAD  to  CG  Xxxxx,  365  days  not  observed  this 
reporting period. During this period, command has concluded that it is in 
the  best  interest  of  the  Coast  Guard  that  [the  applicant]  be  permanently 
transferred from CGIS Xxxxx and re-assigned to a non-CGIS position. 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
No other relief is granted. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
        
David Frost 

 

 

 
Patrick Kernan 

 

 

 
Darren Wall