DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2006-085 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

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 April 7, 2006, 
upon receipt of the applicant’s completed application. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

This  final  decision,  dated  December  14,  2006,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  record  by  removing  his  officer 
evaluation report (OER) for the period April 1, 200x, to March 31, 200y, while he was 
serving as the xxxxxx of the Coast Guard’s xxxxxxxxxxxxx at one of the Coast Guard’s 
training centers.  The disputed OER contains five marks of 3 (on a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 
being best), ten marks of 4, and three marks of 5 in the various performance categories 
and a mark in the fourth spot on the comparison scale.  While serving in the same billet, 
the  applicant  had  previously  received  OERs  with  marks  of  4,  5,  and  6  from  a  prior 
supervisor  and  reporting  officer.    The  disputed  OER  contains  the  following  written 
comments  by  the  Chief  of  the  training  center’s  Operations  Training  Branch,  CDR  X, 
who served as the applicant’s supervisor, to support the low marks of 3 he assigned in 
the  performance  categories  “Results/Effectiveness,” “Adaptability,” “Looking Out for 
Others,” “Teamwork,” and “Workplace Climate”: 
 
1)  Block 3:  “Resources sometimes not used to full potential … senior staff mbrs often 
not  clued  in  on  plan.    Needed  information  not  always  presented  to  supervisor/ 
followers.  Many class critiques not forwarded, had to be searched for.” 

 

2)  Block  3:    “Sometimes  slow  to  take  action  on  important  personnel  issues  …  crew 
office moves … MCPO recall from retirement … frocking of petty officer … required 
supervisor  assistance/intervention.    With  O-x  filling  O-y  billet  for  entire  marking 
period, performance/growth of school and its stature in xxxxx community less than 
expected.    Opportunities  for  professional  growth  outside  of  xxxxxx  assignment 
existed but were not seized.” 

 
3)  Block 4:  “At times does not listen appropriately to others … tends to dismiss others’ 

opinions.” 

 
4)  Block 5:  “Occasionally lax in attending to needs of staff.  With questions/encourage-
ment from supervisor will take appropriate actions.  Inability to think/act beyond 
scope  of  school  sometimes  limits  effectiveness.    When  motivated,  produces  good 
product …” 

 
5)  Block 5:  “After supervisor became involved, [he] strongly supported recall of mbr 

reaching mandatory retirement …” 

 
6)  Block  5:    “Teamwork  not  usually  visible,  often  operations  and  training  seem  frag-
mented.    Supervisor’s  perception  is  that  team  members  are  usually  awaiting  deci-
sion/action  from  [him].    Workplace  climate  not  always  conducive  to  professional 
growth … staff usually waits for direction … some apparent stifled growth oppor-
tunities.    School  operation  requires  more  attention  from  supervisor  than  expected 
from O-x xxxxxx.  Often feedback from students/pending correspondence must be 
sought  out/searched  for.    Again,  when  motivated  will  reach  beyond  xxxxxx 
responsibilities … “ 

 

 

The  commanding  officer  of  the  training  center,  CAPT  X,  who  served  as  the 
reporting  officer  (RO2)  for  the  OER,  wrote  the  following  comments  in  his  part  of the 
OER: 
 
7)  Block  7:    “Do  not  concur  w/  Supervisor  marks  [of  3]  in:  Results/Effectiveness; 
Adaptability; Looking Out for Others; Teamwork; and Workplace Climate.  I would 
assign  a  mark  of  4  in  all  of  those  qualities.    [The  applicant]  has  produced  mostly 
acceptable  results  but  not  what  the  CG  expects  from  an  O-x  filling  an  O-y  billet; 
could  have  done  much  more.    Some  improvement  has  been  noted  in  the  last  few 
months but there is still room for professional growth.  [He] has the skills and talents 
to do the job.  He only needs to bring them to bear to succeed.” 

 
8)  Block 8:  “Produces good work but appears content with O-x level of responsibili-
ties.”    This  block  also  includes a summary of the applicant’s accomplishments not 
included in Block 3, where accomplishments are usually listed by the supervisor. 

9)  Block 10:  “A dedicated officer contributing to the TRACEN mission & CGHQ Pro-
gram goals but not reaching own full potential.  Missed opportunity to lead xxxxx 
school and the associated training & Standardization Teams to even higher levels of 
performance.    While  [the  applicant]  fully  accomplished  the  normal  daily  work  of 
this O-x position, he is capable of much more as evidenced by previous command & 
shipboard  experience.    Extensive  technical  knowledge  of  challenges  facing  xxxxx 
program  makes  [him]  well  suited  for  positions  of  responsibility  within  the  xxxxx 
program such as District, Area, or Headquarters xxxxx staff.” 

 

The applicant stated that in March 200y, at the very end of the evaluation period, 
his rating chain was suddenly changed so that the officer who had been his designated 
reporting officer (RO1) was removed from his rating chain.  His new reporting officer, 
RO2,  had  had  no  opportunity  to  observe  his  performance.    As  a  result,  the  applicant 
stated,  RO2  relied  on  negative  comments  made  by  his  supervisor,  CDR X, when pre-
paring  the  OER.    He  stated  that  at  a  meeting  with  his  supervisor  and  RO1,  RO2  had 
admitted to relying on the supervisor’s assessment and said he would change some of 
the marks and comments in the disputed OER in response to what he had learned from 
RO1 during the meeting.  In support of this allegation, the applicant submitted a copy 
of  a  memorandum  dated  March  10,  200y,  which  announced  a  reconfiguration  of  the 
rating chains at the training center. 

 
The applicant also alleged that his new supervisor, who arrived during the mid-
dle  of  the evaluation period, did not appear to take into account the work he accom-
plished  prior  to  the  supervisor’s  arrival.    Moreover,  the  new  supervisor  never  men-
tioned to him any of the concerns discussed in the disputed OER and never expressed 
dissatisfaction with his performance during the evaluation period.  The applicant stated 
that the supervisor himself was preoccupied with two other schools at the training cen-
ter  and  was  minimally  involved  in  the  xxxxx  School.    The  applicant  stated  that  he 
reported  on  the  status  of  various  training  sessions,  events,  and  projects  at  weekly 
xxxxxxs’ meetings with the supervisor and accepted the supervisor’s lack of inquiry or 
involvement  in  the  xxxxx  School  as  a  sign  that  he  was  satisfied  with  the  applicant’s 
work as a xxxxxx. 

 
The  applicant  further  alleged  that  there  “is  a  significant  disparity  between  the 
accomplishments of the xxxxx School expressed in my evaluation and the evaluation of 
[LCDR  Y],  the  Assistant  Xxxxxx.”    The  applicant  alleged  that  his  leadership  and 
guidance contributed significantly to LCDR Y’s success and to the accomplishments of 
the school’s staff described in LCDR Y’s OER for the same period.  The applicant stated 
that in LCDR Y’s OER, the applicant’s supervisor (who served as LCDR Y’s reporting 
officer) gave LCDR Y the credit for “transitioning the school to the new enlisted mark-
ing system” where as it was the applicant himself who managed the transition.  In fact, 
to streamline the process, enlisted evaluations “were routed directly to [the applicant] 
and  were  no  longer  required  to  go  through  the  Assistant  Xxxxxx.    This  type  of  dis-
crepancy is present in many of the inaccurate statements made by the supervisor in my 

OER.”  The applicant submitted a copy of LCDR Y’s OER.  In it, the applicant’s supervi-
sor described LCDR Y as follows:   

 
Dynamic leader:  bolstered xxxxx School during tenure of weak xxxxxx.  Provided crew 
with focus and direction in potential leadership vacuum.  Improved school, TRACEN, & 
CG through active and enthusiastic leading participation in major initiatives including … 
.    Provided  critical  recommendations  based  on  sound,  logical  thinking  &  rock  solid 
judgment.  Impressive command presence; the “go to” officer. … 
 
Outstanding leadership & management skills; can always be counted on for mission suc-
cess:  Tactfully and diplomatically kept school running smoothly while serving as Asst. 
Xxxxxx.    Personal  efforts  kept  school  and  crew  on  track  despite  having  a  weak  super-
visor.    Has  my  strongest  possible  recommendation  for  command  afloat  or  ashore  …  . 
Highly recommended for promotion to O-y ahead of peers. 
 
Regarding  another  inaccuracy  in  his  own  OER,  the  applicant  stated  that  he 
endorsed and forwarded a first class petty officer’s request to be frocked as a chief petty 
officer so that he could attend a Chief Petty Officers’ Academy the same day he received 
the request.  However, his supervisor questioned whether they should frock someone 
just so the member could attend training.  After the applicant verified the requirement 
with the Academy and the Personnel Command, he again forwarded the request, which 
was approved by the commanding officer of the training center despite his supervisor’s 
opposition. 

 
The  applicant  described  several  significant  projects  underway  at  the  xxxxx 
School  during  the  evaluation  period  that  the  supervisor  apparently  omitted  from  the 
OER.  The applicant also submitted nine statements from officers who worked with him 
during the evaluation period: 

 

 

 

1)  CDR A, who was an xxxxx program manager at Headquarters, described at length 
some  of  the  projects  and  problems  that  the  applicant  successfully  handled  during 
the evaluation period. 

2)  CDR B, an xxxxx signal manager at Headquarters who served as the liaison to the 
xxxxx  School,  wrote  about  some  significant  changes  taking  place  in  the  xxxxx 
program  during  the  evaluation  period  and  stated  that  “xxxxx  and  [the  applicant] 
were  responsible  for  developing  and  fielding  the  training  that  was  going  to  be 
required at the unit level … .  xxxxx was charged with developing a new curriculum, 
integrating the new program into program courses at all levels, [and] upgrading the 
current facilities to allow for the new training workload.”  

3)  CWO  A,  an  xxxxx  technical  advisor  at  the  xxxxx  School,  stated  that  during  the 
evaluation period the applicant “was fully involved in the stand-up of the … Stan-
dardization  Team,  the  development  of  the  …  Training  Team  Course,  and  the  … 
Supervisor Course.  [He] always displayed a high interest in the training being given 
to  xxxxx  units  and  participated on deck during visits to units. …  He successfully 

worked  to  upgrade  and  update  the  courseware  and  transition  to  the  …  format.  
Realizing  a  potential  leadership  gap  with  the  exportable  sections,  he  established  a 
new  section  within  xxxxx  School  to  supervise  the  …  Teams.  …  [The  applicant] 
supported  the  xxxxx  community  outside  of  xxxxx  School  through  the  Technical 
Advisor’s inclusion to the … Team that resulted in better support for xxxxx weight 
handling and rigger safety.  Additionally, he hosted a meeting of the Standardiza-
tion  Team  Chiefs  and  Headquarters  program  managers  at  xxxxx  School  to  review 
the … Manual …  [The applicant] encouraged and supported professional growth of 
xxxxx personnel. …”  CWO A also cited several examples of how the applicant had 
assisted subordinates in their professional growth.  

6)  Mr.  B,  a  project  manager  at  the  training  center’s  technology  center,  praised  the 
applicant’s dedication in ensuring the development of “accurate and valid curricu-
lum outlines.” 
 

7)  CDR C, the facilities engineer at the training center, stated that the applicant did not 
delay the move of the xxxxx School in any way.  He stated that “all of the moves did 
not occur according to the original schedule for a number of construction and logis-
tics  reasons,  but I can’t think of any which were impacted by a customer (such as 
[the applicant] or his school).” 

8)  MCPO A, a section chief at the xxxxx School during the evaluation period, described 
how  the  applicant  positively  endorsed  and  supported  his  request  for  a  two-year 
waiver  of  the  30-year  High  Year  Tenure  retirement  rule  and  then  positively 
endorsed and supported his request to be recalled to active duty and intervened to 
have a policy reviewed by the Personnel Command to ensure that MCPO A would 
have no break in service upon recall. 

4)  CWO  B  stated  that  during  the  evaluation  period,  he  worked  at  the  xxxxx  School 
“standing  up  and  running  the  …  Team  under  the  direction  of  [the  applicant].”  
CWO B described some of the work the applicant accomplished and stated that the 
applicant’s support was “critical” to the success of the Standardization Program and 
to CWO B’s own promotion from chief petty officer to chief warrant officer. 

5)  Mr.  A,  a  trainer  and  curriculum  branch  chief  at  the  training  center,  stated  that 
during the evaluation period, he worked with the applicant to review and update 
the  xxxxx  School’s  curriculum  outlines.    Mr.  A  stated  that  the  applicant  directed 
each of his course managers to update their curricula and then reviewed them all.  
The  applicant  also  worked  with  the  curriculum  staff  to  “hammer  out”  a  review 
process for formatting and reviewing all curricula.  Mr. A noted that the applicant 
also  developed  a  Branch  Chief  Indoctrination  Training  Program  for  the  training 
center, which was well received. 

 

 

 

 

 

9)  CDR D, a branch chief at the training center, stated that during the evaluation period 
the  applicant  spearheaded  the  development  of  a  comprehensive  indoctrination 
training course for new xxxxxxs.  The applicant led numerous meetings over a four-
month period and “effectively tapped the talents” of the team members to develop 
course objectives and a course schedule and to identify appropriate instructors. 

 
In addition, the applicant submitted a copy of a declaration signed by RO2, who 

wrote the following in pertinent part: 

 
After reviewing the statements of personnel directly involved with [the applicant’s] per-
formance during the marking period, I do not feel that the marks and comments in [his] 
OER for the above period accurately reflect his accomplishments during the period.  The 
statements provide a substantially different picture than the information I was provided 
by [his] supervisor. 
 
During the period, I do not believe [the applicant’s] supervisor adequately conveyed the 
programmatic issues that [the applicant] was actively working to resolve.  As a result, I 
was not made aware of [his] efforts to successfully resolve many of these issues.  In addi-
tion, the supervisor failed to inform me of [the applicant’s] efforts to standardize curricu-
lum development within the Training Division. 
 
Likewise,  I  do  not  believe  the  supervisor  provided  an  accurate  portrayal  of  [the  appli-
cant’s] effort to support the [xxxxx] staff.  The statements provided by the personnel who 
worked for [him] show that he encouraged and supported their professional growth and 
their  personal  needs.    This  again  is  inconsistent  with  the  information  provided  in  the 
OER. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On August 8, 2006, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard sub-
mitted 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 under Article 10.A.3.a.2. of the Personnel Manual,1 if an officer 
has not received an OER within 182 days when his reporting officer departs or changes, 
                                                 
1  Article  10.A.3.a.2.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  titled  “Detachment  or  change  of  the  Reporting  Officer,” 
states the following: 

a.  OERs  for  officers  on  a  biennial  submission  schedule  are  required  if  more  than  12 
months have elapsed since the ending date of the last regular OER or the date reported 
present unit, whichever is later. 
b.  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. 
c. OERs for officers on a semiannual submission schedule are required if more than three 
months (i.e., 92 days) have elapsed since the ending date of the last regular OER. 
d. OER submission is optional in other situations. 

an OER must be prepared upon the departure or change of the reporting officer.  There-
fore,  when  the  applicant’s  rating  chain  was  changed  on  March  10,  200y,  three  weeks 
from the end of the evaluation period, the departing reporting officer should have pre-
pared an OER for him, in which case no OER would have been prepared on March 31, 
200y, by the new rating chain.  CGPC stated that “[a]ll comments and marks within the 
disputed OER cannot be viewed with merit because the rightful Reporting Officer did 
not have the opportunity to exercise his legitimate rating chain responsibilities.  There-
fore the entire OER should be expunged and replaced with a Continuity Only OER.” 
 

CGPC submitted three declarations signed by members of the applicant’s rating 
chain.  RO1, who served as the applicant’s reporting officer until March 9, 200y, stated 
in a declaration that when the memorandum was issued on March 10, 200y, he 

 
specifically  told  the  CO  and  XO  that  I  should  sign  the  OER  ending  on  200y/03/31  as 
reporting officer since it was so close to the end of the period or I should do a change of 
reporting officer OER effective 200y/03/09.  They replied that it wasn’t necessary since I 
would  be  reviewing  the  OER  for  content  purposes  while  it  was  enroute  to  the  CO.    …  
[After  meeting  with  RO1  and  the  supervisor,  RO2]  retrieved  the  original  OER  from 
[Headquarters] and had me draft new comments for the Reporting Officer section of the 
OER which I did that day and forwarded to him.  He basically signed what I prepared 
and sent it to [Headquarters] for review. 
 
I disagree with [RO2’s] statement that he was unaware of [the applicant’s] efforts at the 
school.    Everything  addressed  by  [the  applicant]  in  his  statement  was  included  in  the 
OER  package  he  submitted  to  [the  supervisor].    [The  supervisor]  disagreed  with  [the 
applicant’s] level of involvement or success but the documentation from [the applicant] 
was  in  the  OER  package.    On  a  number  of  occasions  both  before  and  during  the  OER 
period under consideration, [RO2] would ask me what [the applicant] was doing at the 
school.    He  would  comment  that  he  never  hears  anything  about  the  school  or  what  is 
going on there.  I would reply that the school was doing fine and the program manager 
…  never  contacted  me  with  concerns.    (I  would  definitely  get  calls  from  the  program 
manager of a school if they either “heard” something or did not like something that took 
place at a school.)  On one occasion during the fall of 200x, [RO2] contacted [the program 
manager]  to  make  sure  he  was  OK  with  how things were going at the xxxxx School.  I 
remember [RO2] saying the program was satisfied with the school’s performance. 
 
My  personal  observation  is  that  [the  applicant]  was  inwardly  focused  as  the  xxxxx 
Xxxxxx  and  did  not  actively  “market”  himself  outside of the school.  He supported his 
staff  when  it  was  appropriate  and  let  the  staff  get  the  credit  for  what  was  done  at  the 
school.  This type of personality is a direct opposite of both [the supervisor and RO2] who 
were outwardly focused in their roles. 
 
The supervisor signed a declaration in which he stated that he could not address 
the applicant’s more specific allegations of error because he only has vague memories of 
the events three years after the fact.  He alleged that after he drafted the disputed OER, 
he discussed it with RO1, the departing reporting officer, and that RO1 shared his rea-
soning and his opinions.  He stated that when he gave the OER to the applicant he tried 
to answer his questions but “did not provide satisfactory explanations … and he right-
fully  sought  them  further  up  the  chain  of  command.”    Later,  RO1  told  him  that RO2 

wanted  him  to  reconsider  the  marks  and  comments  he  had  made  in  the  OER  but  he 
refused because he had already “given it a tremendous amount of thought and consid-
eration and was comfortable that it was an accurate reflection of [the applicant’s] per-
formance as I saw it.”  The supervisor alleged that in the summer of 200y, after the end 
of the evaluation period, RO2 relieved the applicant of his duties based upon a joint rec-
ommendation from himself and RO1.  The supervisor admitted that during the evalua-
tion he “did not provide [the applicant] much task direction and little to no perform-
ance  counseling  or  feedback  until  he  was  presented  with  the  OER  in  question.”    He 
stated  that  the  other  four  commissioned  xxxxxxs  kept  him  “well  informed  of  their 
successes and challenges.  They all sought out my opinion on how they were progress-
ing.  All four have since [been] promoted to O-5.  In my experience silence from the boss 
does not indicate success and I always seek out my boss’s feedback as to whether I am 
on the right path or not. … If [the applicant] had taken the time to inquire, I would have 
made the time to counsel him. … I stand by the evaluation I gave him.” 

 
The captain who served as the reviewer of the disputed OER stated in a declara-
tion that as Chief of the Office of Training and Performance Consulting at Headquar-
ters, he had no opportunity to observe the applicant’s performance. 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On August 28, 2006, the applicant responded to the Coast Guard’s recommenda-

 

 

tion by saying that he concurred with it.   
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

1. 

2. 

4. 

3. 

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

 
 
The  Board  makes  the  following  findings  and  conclusions  on  the  basis  of  the 
applicant's military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission, and appli-
cable law: 
 
 
§ 1552.  The application was timely. 
 
 
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 his record.  To establish that an OER is 
erroneous or unjust, an applicant must prove that it was adversely affected by a “mis-
statement  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.”2  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  preponderance  of the 
evidence that it is erroneous or unjust.3  Absent evidence to the contrary, the Board pre-
sumes that the OER was prepared “correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.”4   
 
 
The Coast Guard has admitted that upon the alteration of the applicant’s 
rating  chain  on  March  10,  200y,  an OER should have been prepared with RO1 as the 
reporting  officer  instead  of  RO2.    The  command’s  failure  to  do  so  constituted  a  clear 
violation of Article 10.A.3.a.2.b. of the Personnel Manual since RO1 was the designated 
reporting officer throughout all but the last few days of the evaluation period and more 
than 182 days had passed since the end date of the applicant’s previous annual OER.  
The  Board  notes  that  although  the  command  was  entitled  to  change  the  applicant’s 
rating  chain,  they  were  required  to  abide  by  the  provisions  of  the  Personnel  Manual 
when doing so. 
 
 
The  Board  must  also  determine,  however,  whether the clear violation of 
Article 10.A.3.a.2.b. was prejudicial to the applicant’s record—i.e., whether the change 
in the reporting officer caused the applicant to receive a worse OER than he otherwise 
would have—and, if so, whether the entire OER must be removed or just that portion 
prepared by the reporting officer, which is actually the best part of the disputed OER.  
In BCMR Docket No. 151-87, it was held that “an OER will not be ordered expunged 
unless  the  Board  finds  that  the  entire  report  is  infected  with  the  errors  or  injustices 
alleged; unless the Board finds that every significant comment in the report is incorrect 
                                                 
2 Germano v. United States, 26 Cl. Ct. 1446, 1460 (1992); Hary v. United States, 618 F .2d 704 (Ct. Cl. 1980); 
CGBCMR Dkt. No. 86-96. 
3 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b). 
4 Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. 
Cl. 1979). 

5. 

7. 

or unjust; or unless the Board finds it impossible or impractical to sever the incorrect/ 
unjust material from the appropriate material.” 
 
Under  Article  10.A.2.e.2.b.,  the  responsibilities  of  the  reporting  officer 
 
include  completing  the  final  part  of  an  OER  based  on  direct  observations  of  the 
reported-on  officer  and  reliable  reports  provided  by  the  supervisor  and  others.    The 
reporting officer’s part of the OER includes block 7, in which the reporting officer com-
ments on the supervisor’s evaluation of the officer; block 8, in which the reporting offi-
cer assigns numerical marks for the categories “Initiative,” “Judgment,” “Responsibil-
ity,” “Professional Presence,” and “Health and Well-being” and provides written com-
ments  to  support  those  marks;  block  9,  the  comparison  scale,  in  which  the  reporting 
officer compares the officer to all others of the same rank whom the reporting officer 
has known; and block 10, in which he writes comments about the reported-on officer’s 
potential to assume greater leadership roles and responsibilities and makes recommen-
dations  about  promotion,  if  any.    The  reporting officer also “[e]nsures the Supervisor 
fully  meets  responsibilities  for  administration  of  the  OES.    Reporting  Officers  are 
expected  to  hold  designated  Supervisors  accountable  for  timely  and  accurate  evalua-
tions.  The Reporting Officer shall return a report for correction or reconsideration, if 
the  Supervisor’s  submission  is  found  inconsistent  with  actual  performance  or  unsub-
stantiated by narrative comments.  The Reporting Officer may not direct that an evalua-
tion mark or comment be changed.”  
 
 
According  to  the  declaration  of  the  outgoing  reporting  officer,  RO1,  he 
actually  prepared  the  reporting  officer’s  part  of  the  disputed  OER:    “[After  meeting 
with RO1 and the supervisor, RO2] retrieved the original OER from [Headquarters] and 
had me draft new comments for the Reporting Officer section of the OER which I did 
that  day  and  forwarded  to  him.    He  basically  signed  what  I  prepared  and  sent  it  to 
[Headquarters] for review.”  However, it is clear that RO1 prepared the reporting offi-
cer’s  part  of  the  OER  not  for  his  own  signature  but  for  that  of  RO2  and  knew,  after 
meeting with the supervisor and RO2, what marks and comments RO2, his command-
ing officer, wanted in the OER.  RO1’s declaration also shows that he knew that RO2’s 
opinion of the applicant’s performance was not as favorable as his own and attributed 
that lower opinion at least in part to personality differences between the applicant and 
RO2.  Moreover, RO2 himself has stated in a declaration on behalf of the applicant that 
he does not believe he received accurate information about the applicant’s performance 
before he signed the disputed OER.  Therefore, the Board is persuaded by a preponder-
ance of the evidence that had RO1 prepared his part of the OER for his own signature, 
the marks and comments would have been better. 
 
 
In  his  declaration  for  the  advisory  opinion,  the  supervisor  stood  by  his 
part  of  the  disputed  OER  and  stated  that  he  was  asked  to  reconsider  his  marks  and 
comments but refused to do so.  Article 10.A.2.e.2.b. does not permit a reporting officer 
to  direct  a  supervisor  to  change  a  specific  comment  or  mark,  but  it  does  state  that  a 
reporting officer “shall return a report for correction or reconsideration, if the Supervi-

6. 

sor’s  submission  is  found  inconsistent  with actual performance or unsubstantiated by 
narrative  comments.”    RO1  observed  the  applicant’s  performance  throughout  the 
evaluation  period  and  clearly  did  not  agree  with  the  supervisor’s  evaluation.    The 
record includes substantial evidence showing that the applicant’s performance was sig-
nificantly  better  than  indicated  by  the  supervisor’s  marks  and  comments  in  the  dis-
puted  OER.    Had  RO1  not  been  removed  from  the  rating  chain,  he  might  well  have 
exercised his authority under Article 10.A.2.e.2.b. to insist that the supervisor’s part of 
the evaluation more accurately reflect the applicant’s performance.  Moreover, had RO1 
not been removed from the rating chain, the supervisor might have been more inclined 
to  revise  his  marks  and  comments  to  more  closely  reflect  RO1’s  opinions.    Therefore 
and in light of all the circumstances of this case, the Board is persuaded that, had RO1 
been allowed to exercise his authority and perform his duties as the applicant’s report-
ing  officer,  the  marks  and  comments  in  the  supervisor’s  section  of  the  disputed  OER 
might well have been better.  
 
 
Therefore,  the  Board  finds  that  the  violation  of  Article  10.A.2.3.2.b.  was 
prejudicial  to  the  applicant’s  record  in  that  marks  and  comments  throughout  the dis-
puted  OER  would  likely  have  been  better  had  the  correct  officer  exercised  his  full 
authority as the applicant’s reporting officer.  Moreover, as stated in BCMR Docket No. 
151-87, the entire OER appears to have been “infected” by the error and it is “impossible 
or impractical to sever the incorrect/unjust material from the appropriate material.” 
 
 
disputed OER and replacing it with one prepared “for continuity purposes only.”   

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

8. 

9. 

 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

ORDER 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

 
 
military record is granted as follows: 
 
 
His  officer  evaluation  report  for  the  period  April  1,  200x,  through  March  31, 
200y, shall be removed from his record and replaced with one prepared “for continuity 
purposes only.”   

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Randall J. Kaplan 

 

 

 

 
 
 Donald A. Pedersen 

 

 

 
 
 Adrian Sevier