DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2006-154 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

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 Chair docketed  the case on August 4, 
2006, upon receipt of the completed application. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  May  11,  2007,  is  approved  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST  

 
 
 The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  her  record  by  removing  a  special  officer 
evaluation report (SOER) for the period from April 28, 2003 to May 8, 2003.  She also requested 
that an administrative remarks entry (Page 7) be removed from her record as well as a punitive 
letter of reprimand.   
 

BACKGROUND 

 

 
At the time the applicant filed her application with the Board she was a lieutenant junior 
grade (LTJG) serving under an active duty agreement for a period from September 25, 2002 until 
September 24, 2005.  On March 11, 2005, the applicant’s active duty agreement was extended 
for two years with an expiration date of June 30, 2007.   
 
 
On May 8, 2003, a page 7 entry was placed in the applicant’s record counseling her on 
the  Coast  Guard’s  policy  prohibiting  romantic  relationships  outside  of  marriage  between 
commissioned officers and enlisted personnel.  The applicant was ordered to refrain from any 
personal relationship with a BM3 and advised that she should interact with him on a professional 
basis only.  She was warned that a violation of the order was punishable under the Uniform Code 
of Military Justice (UCMJ).   
 

 
On  May  8,  2003,  the  applicant  was  awarded  a  letter  of  reprimand  at  non-judicial 
punishment  (NJP)  by  her  commanding  officer  (CO)  for  fraternizing  with  BM3,  a  violation  of  
Article 134 of the UCMJ.  The letter of reprimand stated the following: 
 

You exchanged personal mobile phone numbers, met for dinner, which included 
the consumption of alcohol, and were later apprehended by U.S. Army Military 
Police in a secluded and off limits part of Fort Eustis Army Base.   Your actions 
caused  you  to  be  disenrolled  from  MLE  School  and  a  loss  of  the  billet  for  the 
ship.  Your misconduct belies the Coast Guard core values of honor, respect, and 
devotion  to  duty  and  denigrates  your  position  as  a  Commissioned  Officer.  
Moreover  your  misconduct  had  a  negative  impact  on  your  command  and  the 
Coast Guard.   

On  May  8,  2003,  the  applicant  acknowledged  the  letter  of  reprimand  and  her  right  to 

 
 
appeal it. (There is no evidence in the record that the applicant appealed the NJP.)  
 
 
attached, was prepared and submitted for the following reasons: 
 

A  SOER  for  the  period April  28,  2003,  to  May  8,  2003,  with  the  letter  of  reprimand 

This OER is submitted under Article 10.A.3.c.1.(1) due to [the applicant] being 
awarded a punitive Letter of Reprimand following UCMJ proceedings and being 
found in violation of Article 134, fraternization, of the Uniform Code of Military 
Justice.     
 
 
In Block 8 (Personal and Professional qualities) of the SOER, the applicant’s observed 
marks consisted of 3s in the judgment, responsibility, and professional presence categories.  The 
comments in the block were as follows: 
 

Demonstrated  poor  judgment  by  knowingly  engaging  in  fraternization  with 
enlisted member of crew while assigned TAD to MLE School.  [The applicant] 
was later detained by U.S. Army Military Police after being located in a parked 
vehicle w/enlisted member in a remote & off limits area of Fort Eustis Army base.  
[The  applicant]  was  disenrolled  from  MLE  School  due  to  incident.    [The 
applicant’s]  actions  had  a  negative  impact  on  this  command  &  on  the  Coast 
Guard.   

The applicant was given a mark of 4 on the comparison scale where the reporting officer 

compared her with other LTJGs that he has known throughout his career.   
 

In block 10 of the SOER, the reporting officer described the applicant's potential in the 

 

following manner: 
 

[The applicant's] hit the deck plates running & quickly became a valued member 
of crew.  Prior to incident that triggered this OER, [the applicant’s] performance 
was above average for a newly assigned JO & was on track for recommendations 
as CO/XO Afloat WPB & Grad school. Despite this unfortunate incident I highly 

recommend retention of this officer in the CG & strongly believe [the applicant] 
can continue to be a valued member of the crew & CG.  I believe this was a one 
time incident & this officer has learned from the mistake.   

 

ALLEGATIONS 

 

Regarding the punitive letter of reprimand, the applicant alleged that it is not supported 

 
The applicant alleged that the SOER should be removed because the comments give the 
impression that she was involved in two separate and distinct instances of fraternization.  She 
cited to the following comments in support of her allegation:  “Demonstrated poor judgment by 
knowingly engaging in fraternization with enlisted member of crew while assigned TAD to MLE 
School.  [The applicant] was later detained by U.S. Army Military Police after being located in a 
parked vehicle w/enlisted member in a remote & off limits area of Fort Eustis Army base.” 
 
 
With  respect  to  the  page  7  counseling  entry,  the  applicant  alleged  that  it  refers  to  a 
romantic relationship, which was never an issue.  In this regard, she states that neither the letter 
of reprimand nor the SOER refer to a romantic relationship.   
 
 
by either the SOER or the page 7, which she states is in error.   
 
 
The applicant stated that the counseling she received at the time of the incident and the 
comments in block 10 of the SOER indicated that the violation was a one time incident and that 
it would not affect her future Coast Guard career.  She stated this indication was reinforced by 
the CO’s recommendation that she be promoted with her peers.  However, the applicant stated 
that  she  was  not  selected  for  promotion  to  LTJG  by  the  first  selection  board  to  consider  her 
record  because  of  the  fraternization  incident,  but  she  was  selected  by  the  second  board.    She 
stated as a result of the incident she was offered only a one  year extension of her active duty 
contract, which she claims will only permit her to have one opportunity for selection to LT.  She 
alleged  that  the  mentoring  given  to  her  at  the  time  of  the  incident  was  misleading  and  it  has 
clearly affected her career.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On December 21, 2006, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 
an advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny the applicant’s request based upon the 
memorandum from Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC).   CGPC offered the 
following in pertinent part: 
 

The rating chain carried out its duties and accurately documented the applicant’s 
performance during the period of the disputed OER. 
 
Based  on  their  Declarations,  the  rating  chain  believes  the  disputed  OER  (and 
other affiliated documents) is justified due to the applicant’s misconduct . . .  They 
are correct in their belief and the applicant’s arguments are without merit.  The 
applicant  claims  that  the  disputed  OER  describes  two  incidents  vice  one  and 
therefore the OER should be removed from her record.  The applicant takes two 

statements  from  Block  8  of  the  disputed  OER  out  of  context  to  support  her 
argument.  However, when a person reads Block 8 in its entirety, it is clear that 
the  rating  chain  described  one  incident    .  .  .      Further,  there  is  no  merit  to  the 
applicant’s  argument  that  the  [page  7  counseling  entry]  refers  to  the  previous 
“romantic relationship” involving the applicant.   According to the rating chain, 
the  purpose  of  the  [page  7]  was  to  prevent  the  applicant  from  engaging  in  a 
romantic  relationship  in  the  future;  it  was  not  meant  to  document  her  previous 
misconduct  .  .  .    Based  on  the  record,  [the]  applicant’s  rating  chain  correctly 
counseled the applicant and documented it.  Finally, the applicant claims she was 
counseled  that  her  misconduct  would  not  impact  her  Coast  Guard  career.   This 
argument  is  refuted  by  the  applicant’s  rating  chain  .  .  .  and  it  is  without  merit.  
There is no evidence that the rating chain mislead the applicant.   
 

  * 

 

* 

* 

 

 
The  OER  for  the  period  ending  [May  8,  2003]  accurately  documents  the 
applicant’s  performance  during  the  rating  period.    Applicant  has  not  provided 
evidence  that  overcomes  the  presumption  of  regularity  with  respect  to  the 
construction  or  submission  of  the  disputed  OER  and  the  attached  letter  of 
reprimand.  Also, [the page 7] is an accurate and appropriate counseling tool.    

 
 
The Coast Guard obtained statements from the applicant’s rating chain for the disputed 
SOER.    The  reviewer  for  the  OER  was  also  the  CO,  the  reporting  officer  was  the  executive 
officer, and the supervisor was the operations officer.   
 
The  CO  stated  that  the  OER  as  written  accurately  reflects  that  after  the  applicant  was 
 
observed fraternizing in a vehicle with a petty officer, she was subsequently detained by U.S. 
Army  Military  Police.    He  stated  there  was  only  one  offense.    With  respect  to  the  allegation 
about the page 7, the CO stated it was intended to prevent further fraternization with the petty 
officer who was also assigned to the ship.   
 
 
The reporting officer stated that due to the appearance that a romantic relationship may 
have existed between the applicant and the petty officer, the applicant was counseled on Coast 
Guard  policy  which  prohibits  such  relationships  between  commissioned  officers  and  enlisted 
personnel  outside  of  marriage.    The  reporting  officer  stated  that  he  was  at  each  counseling 
session and denies that the applicant was told that the incident would not affect her career.  In 
fact, the reporting officer stated that “I have no doubts that [the applicant] was fully informed of 
the potential negative impact this incident may cause to her future career.”   
 
 
The  supervisor  wrote  that  he  was  the  preliminary  inquiry  officer  for  the  incident.    He 
stated that he does not feel that the wording of the OER or other documentation is misleading.  
He noted the applicant’s opinion that the SOER comments suggest two separate incidents; but he 
pointed out that in a subsequent sentence in the same comment block the word incident is used, 
which does not convey the impression of multiple incidents.  The supervisor stated that the page 
7 counseling entry put the applicant on notice that any future interaction with the petty officer 
should  be  only  on  a  professional  basis.    The  supervisor  stated  that  the  Punitive  Letter  of 

Reprimand  was  awarded  as  a  result  of  the  UCMJ  proceedings  and  does  not  contain  any 
inconsistencies or misleading statements. 
 
 
Each  member  of  the  rating  chain  commented  on  the  high  quality  of  the  applicant’s 
performance and her superior work ethic.  According to the reporting officer and supervisor, this 
is  the  reason  the  command  did  its  best  to  support  the  applicant’s  future  in  the  Coast  Guard, 
despite the fraternization incident.     
 

APPLICANT'S REPLY TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On  December  27,  2006,  a  copy  of  the  views  of  the  Coast  Guard  was  mailed  to  the 

applicant for a response.  The BCMR did not receive a reply from the applicant.      
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

1.  

 
2. 

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: 
 

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

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

The applicant alleged that the disputed SOER is misleading in that it suggests that 
she was involved in more than fraternization incident.  While the first two sentences of the Block 
8. comments may possibly be interpreted as suggested by the applicant, if the Block 8. comments 
are read in their entirety, it is clear that there was only one incident.  The third sentence of Block 
8  reads  “The  applicant  was  disenrolled  from  MLE  School  due  to  incident.”      In  addition,  the 
reporting officer stated in Block 10. of the OER, “I believe this is a one time incident & this 
officer has learned from the mistake.”  Accordingly, any possible confusion caused by the first 
two sentences in Block 8. is clarified by subsequent comments in that block as well as comments 
in block 10.   
 

3.  The applicant’s argument that the page 7 counseling entry should be removed because 
neither the SOER not the letter of reprimand uses the term romantic relationship is without merit.  
The Board finds no error in the use of this term.  Based upon the statement from the CO and the 
reporting  officer,  the  circumstances  under  which  the  applicant  and  the  petty  officer  were 
discovered is probative evidence that they were involved in a romantic relationship.  Moreover, 
the term fraternization includes such relationships if they exist between a commissioned officer 
and an enlisted member outside of marriage.  Article 8.H.4. of the Personnel Manual makes clear 
that  an  officer  who  engages  in  a  romantic  relationship  with  an  enlisted  member  outside  of 
marriage is committing fraternization.  Accordingly, the Board finds under the circumstances in 
which the applicant was discovered with the BM3, the page 7 counseling entry properly advised 
her  about  prohibited  romantic  relationships  between  enlisted  members  and  commissioned 
officers.   In addition the page 7 properly directed the applicant to cease her relationship with the 
enlisted member and warned her that if she violated the order she could be punished under the 
UCMJ. 
 

4.  The applicant’s argument that the letter of reprimand should be removed because it is 
not supported by the SOER or the page 7 entry is without merit.  The applicant was punished at 
NJP with a punitive letter of reprimand for fraternization.  The NJP is independent of the SOER 
and the page 7 and may be placed in the applicant’s record whether or not attached to an SOER.  
However, in this case Article 10.A.3.c.(1)(1) of the Personnel Manual required the submission of 
a special OER because of the NJP.   
 
5.    The  applicant  has  presented  only  her  view  that  she  was  misled  by  counseling  she 
 
received at the time of the incident.  In this regard, she stated that she was misled into believing 
that  the  NJP,  SOER,  and  page  7  would  not  affect  her  career  in  a  negative  manner. All  three 
members of the rating chain denied that they provided the applicant with any such counseling.  
Accordingly, the Board finds that she has failed to prove this allegation.  The Board notes that it 
is implausible that senior officers, such as those in the applicant’s rating chain, would provide 
such erroneous counseling.  In the Board experience a NJP imposed on an officer usually has a 
significant negative effect on that officer’s career.   
  
 
 
6.  Accordingly, the applicant has failed to prove error or injustice in this case and the 
Board  finds  no  basis  on  which  to  grant  relief.    The  SOER,  letter  of  reprimand,  and  page  7 
counseling entry appear to be accurate and properly placed in the applicant’s record.   
 
 

 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of her military 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

        

 
 Toby Bishop 

 

 

 
 James E. McLeod 

 

 

 
 
 Adrian Sevier 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

record is denied.