DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2007-120 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

FINAL DECISION 

 

 
 

 

 
 
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 March 30, 2007, upon receipt 
of the completed application, and assigned it to staff member J. Andrews to prepare the decision 
for the Board as required by 33 C.F.R. § 52.61(c). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated November 29, 2007, is approved and signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant, a lieutenant commander (LCDR) in the Coast Guard Reserve, asked the 
Board to remove from her record the officer evaluation report (OER) covering her performance 
as a lieutenant on active duty in the regular Coast Guard from June 1, 2002, through May 31, 
2003,  when  she  was  a  controller  at  a  District  Command  Center.    In  the  OER,  the  applicant 
received one mark of 4 in the category “Planning and Preparedness,” fourteen marks of 5, two 
marks of 6, and one mark of 7 in the other performance categories, and a mark of 4 on the com-
parison scale.1 

 
The applicant alleged that the Supervisor, LT D, who prepared the first section of the dis-
puted OER, had only eight weeks’ more seniority than her and was very competitive toward her.  
Moreover,  LT  D  was  competing  against  the  applicant  for  promotion  before  the  same  LCDR 
selection board that year.  The applicant stated that because they were competing for promotion 
that year, it was inappropriate for LT D to be on her rating chain.2   
                                                 
1  Coast  Guard  officers  are  rated  in  numerous  categories  of  performance  on  a  scale  of  1  to  7,  with  7  being  best.  
Although the comparison scale is not numbered, there are seven possible spots on the scale.  A mark in the 4th spot  
on the comparison scale means that the applicant’s Reporting Officer considered her to be a “good performer” ready 
for “tough, challenging assignments,” when comparing her to all other lieutenants he had known. 
2 Officers are evaluated by a “rating chain,” which normally includes a Supervisor, who is normally the person to 
whom the Reported-on Officer reports on a daily basis and who completes the first 13 numerical marks in an OER 
and  their  supporting  comments;  a  Reporting  Officer,  who  is  normally  the  Supervisor’s  Supervisor  and  who  com-
pletes the remaining marks and comments in an OER; and the Reviewer, who is normally the Reporting Officer’s 

 
The applicant stated that LT D gave her a mediocre mark of 4 in the performance cate-
gory “Planning and Preparedness” because of “an isolated incident where I had overlooked the 
formality of a brief that was to be given.  I adapted and gave an informal brief instead, but was 
disciplined for these actions.  [LT D] said there were some other reasons for the mark, but did not 
provide specifics.”  Therefore, the applicant alleged, she was not assigned a numerical mark in 
this category because of her overall performance or the trend of her performance but because of a 
single incident, which is discouraged under Article 10.B.6. of the Personnel Manual. 

 
The applicant also alleged that the numerical marks are erroneously inconsistent with the 
laudatory written comments in the disputed OER.  She noted that in block 3 of the OER, she is 
said to have used “exceptional forethought” and the word “excellent” is used three times in the 
written comments but, instead of receiving excellent numerical marks, she received one 4 and 
four 5s in the corresponding categories.  The applicant also alleged that the fact that she received 
the highest score (96%) of any of the watchstanders at the Command Center on the Standardiza-
tion Team written test shows that she was highly prepared and should have received at least a 
mark of 5 for “Planning and Preparedness.” 

 
The applicant further stated that the Reviewer for the OER, the Chief of Search and Res-
cue, told her that the mark of 4 she received on the comparison scale was based on the mark of 4 
that LT D assigned her for “Planning and Preparedness.”  She alleged that he told her that “he 
never marked right of center [on the comparison scale] if an officer received a mark o 4 in any 
category.” 

 
The applicant also alleged that, whereas all other lieutenants at their command had the 
Chief of Operations serve as their Reviewer, the lieutenants like her who served as watchstanders 
at the Command Center had the Chief of Search and Rescue designated as their Reviewer.  The 
applicant noted that this practice was changed the following year after she failed of selection. 

 
The applicant alleged that as a result of the low marks in the disputed OER, she failed of 
selection twice for promotion to LCDR in 2003 and 2004 and so was released from active duty in 
2005.  At that time, she felt demoralized because of what had happened with the disputed OER 
and  subsequent  failures  of  selection.   However, she has since been promoted to LCDR in the 
Reserve,  is  looking  forward  to  a  great  career  in  the  Reserve,  and  wants  to  be competitive for 
future promotions.  Therefore, she asked that the disputed OER be removed from her record. 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
On  September  20,  2003,  the  applicant  was  appointed  an  ensign  in  the  Reserve.    She 
served  on  continuous  active  duty  and  was  promoted  to  lieutenant  junior  grade  on  March  24, 
1995.  From April 1995 through December 1996, the applicant attended flight training to become 
a pilot.  Upon graduation from formal training, she began serving as a helicopter copilot with 
collateral duties as an operations duty officer and an assistant personnel officer.  On her OERs, 
she mostly received marks of 4 for her operational expertise as a pilot, but higher marks of 5, 6, 
                                                                                                                                                             
Supervisor,  who  reviews  the  OER  for  consistency,  and  who  need  not  have  observed  the  Reported-on  Officer’s 
performance.  Personnel Manual, Articles 10.A.2.a., 10.A.2.d.1.a., 10.A.2.e.1.a., and 10.A.2.f.1.a. 

APPLICANT’S OER MARKS AS A LIEUTENANT FROM 2/1/98 THROUGH 6/30/05 
CATEGORYa 
OER 1  OER 2  OER 3  OER 4  OER 5  OER 6  OER 7  OER 8  AVEb 
Planning & Preparedness 
5.4 
Using Resources 
5.3 
Results/Effectiveness 
5.7 
Adaptability 
5.3 
Professional Competence 
4.9 
Speaking & Listening 
5.7 
Writing 
5.3 
Looking Out for Others 
5.9 
Developing Subordinates 
5.9 
Directing Others 
5.3 
Teamwork 
5.3 
Workplace Climate 
4.6 
Evaluations 
4.7 

5 
5 
6 
5 
5 
6 
5 
5 
5 
5 
5 
4 
5 

5 
5 
6 
6 
4 
6 
5 
5 
6 
5 
5 
5 
4 

5 
6 
6 
6 
4 
6 
5 
6 
6 
5 
5 
5 
5 

5 
5 
5 
5 
4 
5 
5 
5 
6 
5 
5 
4 
5 

6 
5 
5 
5 
5 
5 
5 
6 
6 
5 
5 
5 
5 

4 
5 
5 
5 
5 
5 
5 
6 
5 
5 
5 
5 
5 

6 
5 
6 
5 
6 
6 
6 
7 
6 
6 
6 
4 
5 

6 
6 
6 
5 
6 
6 
6 
7 
6 
6 
6 
5 
4 

and 7 in other performance categories.  Although she did not qualify as a first pilot, on her final 
OER as a copilot in 2000, she received a mark of 5 on the comparison scale, which indicated that 
she was an “excellent performer.”  On March 24, 1998, the applicant was promoted to lieutenant, 
and on April 7, 1998, she was integrated into the regular Coast Guard.  Her marks in three OERs 
that she received as a lieutenant and copilot appear in the table below as OER 1 through OER 3. 
 
 
In April 2000, the applicant began serving as a controller and command duty officer at a 
District Command Center.  As such, she coordinated all search and rescue (SAR) operations in a 
3.8 million square mile region.  For her first three OERs in this position (OER 4 through OER 6 
in the table below), her Supervisor was the Senior Controller, LT D; her Reporting Officer was 
the assistant chief of the SAR Branch, LCDR W; and her Reviewer was the chief of the SAR 
Branch, CDR N.  OER 6 in the table (shaded) is the disputed OER.   
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 
5 
5 
6 
7 
5.1 
4 

6 
5 
5 
6 
7 
5.5 
5 

6 
5 
5 
5 
7 
5.3 
4 

6 
4 
5 
5 
6 
5.1 
4 

Initiative 
5 
Judgment 
5 
Responsibility 
5 
Professional Presence 
7 
Health & Well-Being 
7 
Average Mark in OER 
5.4 
Comparison Scalec 
5 
a  Supervisors fill in the marks for the first 13 categories, and Reporting Officers complete the remaining marks. 
b  Averages are rounded and do not include marks from shaded column. 
c  The comparison scale is not numbered.  However, as with the performance categories, there are 7 possible marks.  
Officers are supposed to be marked in comparison with all other officers of the same rank whom the Reporting Offi-
cer has known.  A mark in the 4th spot describes the officer as a “good performer; give tough, challenging assign-
ments,” while a mark in the 5th spot on the scale means that the officer is an “excellent performer; give toughest, 
most challenging leadership assignments.”   
 

5 
5 
5 
6 
7 
5.2 
4 

5 
5 
6 
7 
6 
5.7 
5 

6 
6 
6 
6 
7 
5.9 
5 

5.6 
5.0 
5.3 
6.0 
6.7 
5.4 
4.6 

 
LT D wrote the following comments to support the numerical marks she assigned for the 
categories “Planning and Preparedness,” “Using Resources,” “Results/Effectiveness,” “Adapta-
bility,” and “Professional Competence” in the disputed OER: 
 

Astutely responded to challenging MEDEVAC cases including the coord. of civilian helo to land 
& conduct long range MEDEVAC of CG mbr from WAGB operating in the Arctic & outside of 
range of CG helo, unprecedented approach saved mbr life.  Successfully coord. internat’l MED-
EVAC of CG mbr, Canadian helo safely hoisted patient, one life saved.  Excellent forethought to 
use Nat’l Guard long range helo w/ pararescue jumpers to medically assist patient aboard foreign 
freighter  600  miles  offshore,  excellent  use  of  resources  resulted  in  timely  medical  treatment  of 
patient.  Overcame poor comms, scant info & language barrier during search for overdue Eskimo 
walrus hunters, quickly launched resources & located hunters safe on remote island in Bering Sea.  
Excellent response launching helo 200+ miles to investigate lost comms & possible vsl in distress; 
helo found sole operator on fishing vessel unconscious w/ broken hip unable to assist himself or 
operate the vessel; 1 life saved.  Quickly adapted to several key CC technology changes including 
electronic SARSAT system, MISLE, ALMIS & on-line force tracking website.  Skillfully prose-
cuted  3  foreign  F/V  maritime  boundary  line  incursions,  led  WHEC’s  through  initial  actions, 
ensured proper case packages.  Rec’d highest CC STAN Team score on written test (96%) of all 
controllers  (14  tested).    Acquired  3  credits  towards  Master’s  Aviation  Safety  & Human Factors 
(gpa 4.0). 

 

 

LT D wrote the following comments to support the numerical marks for the categories 

“Speaking and Listening” and “Writing” in the disputed OER: 

 
Gives clear, succinct Ops briefs to (d) & Sr. Staff.  Fielded radio, print & TV media during several 
sensitive cases; projected positive CG image.  Gave superb SAR brief at AK CG & Cruise ship 
industry  tabletop  exercise  (100+  participants), broadened industry’s knowledge of AK CG mass 
rescue ops, rec’d BZ from COTP.  Outstanding educational presentation at FAA Seaplane Safety 
Symposium, broadened 400+ pilots knowledge of CG SAR response.  Drafted 11 successful Flag 
ltrs w/ little or no editing req’d.  CC evac plan (EAP) approved as D17INST. 

LT D wrote the following comments to support the numerical marks for the categories 
“Looking Out for Others,” “Developing Others,” “Directing Others,” “Teamwork,” Workplace 
Climate,” and “Evaluations” in the disputed OER: 

 
Volunteered  &  attended  CISM  course,  certified  as  Peer  counselor,  mbr  of  D17  CISM  “team”.  
Routinely swapped or stood by for other watchstanders enrolled in local university, significantly 
contributing to their educational success.  Networked for family w/ minimal info to locate fisher-
man whose wife was dying, astute investigative efforts located him in Dutch Hbr in time to talk w/ 
wife before her death.  Avid PIE participant, volunteered weekly in elementary class.  Coord. class 
educational field trip to CAP, local EMS, and airport.  As CG liaison to SAR orgs and key sup-
porter of newly formed grass root SE AK SAR advisory group, promoted candid dialogue among 
SAR professionals & volunteers thru-out SEAK.  Verbally counseled 3 PO’s on attitude & work 
performance; all markedly improved.  Partnered with local SAR assets (mountain rescue, fire dept, 
state troopers, & CG air sta) during search for missing Ensign from cutter.  Team approach to case 
quickly located mbr severely hypothermic & injured on remote mountain ledge, efforts saved CG 
mbr life.  Led 2 Asst. CDO’s in prosecuting challenging operational missions; 200 SAR missions 
resulting in 73 lives saved and 194 lives assisted.  Submitted timely accurate input for 8 sets of 
enlisted marks.  Excellent OES documentation, well organized, thorough and on time. 

LCDR W, the applicant’s Reporting Officer, wrote the following comments in support of 

 
 
the remaining marks in the disputed OER, which he assigned: 
 

Concur w/ Supervisor’s comments & evaluation.  [The applicant] continues to be a solid performer 
as CDO and received consistent praise from units on her coordination and support during cases.  
She  has  shown  great  initiative  as  the  Command  Center  SAR  liaison;  dedicated  an  incredible 
amount of time to the success of volunteer organizations.  Her active leadership in the local Civil 
Air Patrol Squadron is noteworthy.  A regular attendee of the staff leadership forum, she led one 
class and co-facilitated an out-of-the-box discussion on taking risks as a leader. 
 
Following a false alarm SAR response to a vessel previously scuttled and drifting in SE passage, 
made recommendation to MSO to work w/ state to revisit policy on vessel scuttling in state waters; 
MSO noted need for better tracking measures & policy is currently under revision.  Improved level 
of care on CG Medevac’s by coord. air ambulance nurses to accompany C-130 on flts where com-
mercial aircraft unable to assist.  Appointed Aviation Safety Counselor for AK Region by FAA.  
Certified to fly squadron missions for local Civil Air Patrol (CAP) & counter drug missions.  Pro-
vided monthly training for 40+ members as CAP unit Safety Officer.  Active in church outreach as 
correspondent  to  missionaries  and  cooking  monthly meals for local homeless shelter.  Qualified 
Ski  Patrol volunteer; conducted weekly safety patrols at local ski slope.  Epitome of health and 
well-being; trained at elite level; competed on 10-person relay team in 100-mi running race; ran 13 
mi leg; represented CG in ½ Marathon.  Participated in annual Chief’s Fitness Challenge on CC 
Team;  actively  encouraged  co-workers  to  establish  workout  programs,  go  hiking,  quit  smoking 
during Great American Smoke-out, and eat healthy. 
 
[The applicant] is a highly valued member of the Command Center team as a seasoned Controller.  
Strong performance in all CC missions.  An accomplished staff officer as evident by her excellent 
writing ability & collateral duty performance.  A dedicated community volunteer extremely active 
in  many  local  organizations  that  reflects  positively  on  the  CG.    An  excellent  choice  for  liaison 
assignments.  Genuine concern for others makes her an ideal candidate for Work Life Supervisor.  
[She]  is  recommended  for  challenging  assignments  such as MHS, Intel, or any operational staff 
position.  [She] is recommended and fully qualified for promotion w/peers to LCDR. 

 
 
For her next OER as a controller (OER 7 above), the applicant’s Supervisor was LCDR 
W, the assistant chief of the SAR Branch; her Reporting Officer was CDR K, the branch chief; 
and the Reviewer was CAPT S, chief of the Operations Division.  For her final year as a control-
ler, the applicant also served as an operational analyst for the Bi-National Planning Group of the 
Northern Command.  Her Supervisor (for OER 8) was LCDR T, chief of the Awareness & Warn-
ing Branch; her Reporting Officer was CAPT C, co-director of the Bi-National Planning Group; 
and the Reviewer was RADM B, deputy director of operations for the Northern Command (J-3). 
 

The applicant was not selected for promotion to LCDR in 2003, when the disputed OER 
(OER 6) was the most recent in her record, and or in 2004, when OER 7 was the most recent in 
her record.  Therefore, having failed twice of selection for promotion, she was honorably dis-
charged on June 30, 2005, with more than 12 years of active service.  On July 1, 2005, the appli-
cant was reappointed a lieutenant in the Reserve.  She has since been promoted to LCDR. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On July 31, 2007, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard recommended 
that the Board deny relief in this case.  The JAG adopted the findings and analysis of the case 
provided in a memorandum prepared by CGPC, which the JAG forwarded as the Coast Guard’s 
advisory opinion. 
 

CGPC stated that there is no basis for the applicant’s allegation that LT D should have 
been  disqualified  as  her  Supervisor.    CGPC  stated  that  LT  D’s  date  of  rank  was  January  16, 

 

Declaration of LT D (now LCDR D), Supervisor for OER 4, OER 5, and the Disputed OER 6 
 
 
Regarding the mark of 4 for “Planning and Preparedness,” LT D stated that it “accurately 
reflected her performance at the time.”  LT D stated that, while the briefs on other days were 
informal, every Tuesday at the Command Center, there was to be  
 

1998,  while  the  applicant’s  was  March  24,  1998.    CGPC  stated  that  LT  D  was  senior  to  the 
applicant,  as  required  by  the  Personnel  Manual,  and  “due  to  her  training  and  experience  was 
selected  by  the  Chief  of  the  District  Seventeen  Office  of  Search  and  Rescue  to  be  the  Senior 
Controller within the Command Center.”  CGPC stated that LT D served as the Supervisor for all 
of the controllers’ OERs and that the entire rating chain was properly designated in accordance 
with policy.  CGPC further stated that the rating chain was altered the following year not because 
the prior rating chain was unfair, as the applicant alleged, but because a lieutenant who was jun-
ior to the applicant was chosen to serve as the Senior Controller. 

 
CGPC stated that the mark of 4 that LT D assigned to the applicant for “Planning and 
Preparedness” was reviewed by the Reporting Officer and Reviewer, who found no inconsisten-
cies, and that their was adequate support in the written comments for the mark.  CGPC further 
stated that the applicant failed to submit evidence to support her allegations about the mark of 4 
on the comparison scale.  CGPC concluded that “there is no evidence of bias or prejudice against 
the Applicant.  The rating chain carried out its responsibilities and submitted the applicant’s OER 
in accordance with the Coast Guard Personnel Manual.  They were in the best position to observe 
the applicant’s performance and provided a fair, accurate, and objective OER.”  In support of 
these allegations, CGPC submitted three statements signed by the members of the rating chain 
for the disputed OER, which are summarized below. 

a formal operational brief in the secure conference room, which included a large PowerPoint pres-
entation, briefed by the off-going Command Center watchstander.  The “formal” brief included all 
divisions and branch chiefs and basically constituted the District’s formal staff meeting with a two 
star  Admiral.    Almost  all  of  the  Command  Center  watchstanders  prepared  the  majority  of  the 
PowerPoint presentation the night before during slow periods of the watch.  This practice allowed 
them  to  “fine  tune”  the  presentation  in  the  morning  prior  to  the  formal  briefing  time.    It  also 
enabled them to “be prepared” in case a difficult mission/case presented itself early in the morning.  
[The applicant] did not follow this practice, but began preparing the detailed PowerPoint about an 
hour before the brief.  [She] routinely found herself rushed getting the information formatted “just 
in time” for the formal brief, often appearing frazzled in front of the District Commander.  I ver-
bally counseled her several times about this practice, highly recommending she prepare the major-
ity  of  the  brief  the  night  before.    She  disregarded  this  advice  and,  as  predicted,  did  not  get  the 
PowerPoint presentation done for the “formal brief” one Tuesday, which reflected poorly on the 
Command Center and herself.  She also downplayed the incident as “no big deal.”  She was for-
mally  counseled by me for this event.  As the Senior Controller, I took the brunt of the critical 
remarks by several senior staff members concerning the incident.  Even after the event, she still 
continued her trend and continued to come across as frazzled in front of the Admiral.  This trend 
placed an unreasonable burden on the other Command Center watchstander (enlisted member) by 
having him help her gather information or do portions of the PowerPoint for her, or he’d be left to 
handle  the  SAR  mission  by  himself  while  she  was  focused  on  preparing  the  brief.    Her  lack  of 
planning during the morning was often a rub with the other watchstanders, who complained to me 
frequently.    No  amount  of  counseling,  mentoring,  or  coaxing  encouraged  her  to  change  her 
method.    Because  she  was  very  competent  in  some  areas  of  “Planning  and  Preparedness”  but 
lacked in other areas, I balanced this incident with the mark of a “4,” which I believe accurately 
portrayed her performance during the marking period. 

 

Regarding  the  allegation  that  she  assigned  the  applicant  low  marks  because  they  were 

competing for promotion to LCDR at the same time, LT D stated that she  

 
was  8  weeks  senior  to  [the  applicant]  and  had  6  more  years  of  service  than  her  as  I  was  prior 
enlisted.  Due to my additional service time, I felt as though I was more experienced and routinely 
tried to mentor her in “best management practices.”  [The applicant] was a good officer, but did 
not  take  constructive  criticism  well.    Her  reference  to  me  being  competitive  with  her  for  O4  is 
baseless.  Because of my prior service time, I was already tenured for a 20 year retirement whether 
or not I was selected for LCDR.  Further, I received orders to [another station] as the Commanding 
Officer three months before the OER in question was written and assumed command of [that sta-
tion]  on  July  2003.    Finally,  [the  applicant]  and  I  had  different  career  paths;  I  was  operations 
ashore and she was an aviator.  I would have liked to see her succeed in the Coast Guard; she is an 
intelligent and competent officer in a number of ways.  Nevertheless, it is my opinion that her dif-
ficulties in the aviation field prior to reporting in to the Command Center is what precluded her 
from being selected for LCDR by the active duty [selection] board, not this OER. 
 

Declaration of LCDR W (now LCDR A), Reporting Officer for OERs 4, 5, and 6 

 
LCDR W stated that, as the assistant chief of the SAR Branch, she was LT D’s direct 
Supervisor and the applicant’s Reporting Officer.  Regarding the mark of 4 for “Planning and 
Preparedness”  in  the  disputed  OER,  LCDR  W  stated  that  during  the  reporting  period,  LT  D 
informed her that the applicant  

 
had  failed to prepare the weekly formal brief after coming on watch as controller that morning.  
Because her watch fell on the morning of the weekly formal brief, it was [the applicant’s] respon-
sibility to prepare that brief and present it to senior staff.  [The applicant] had just returned from 
personal  leave  and  this  was  her  first  watch  duty  following  the  personal  leave  period.    To  my 
knowledge, as best I can recall, this was the second incident where [she] had failed to prepare her-
self for the 24-hour period of her assigned watch duty.  I believe the prior incident also occurred 
on her first watch following a period of personal leave.  I do not recall the subject of that prior 
incident, only that it was related to improper preparation for the 24-hour watch period.  Following 
this second incident (subject incident of evaluation), [LT D] informed me of the verbal counseling 
session  she  had  conducted  with  [the  applicant].    [LT  D]  stated  that  she  verbally  counseled  [the 
applicant] on the subject of properly preparing for watch duty and taking the necessary time prior 
to relieving the watch to become familiar with real time events, previous day events, and scheduled 
events for the 24-hour period of her assigned watch duty.  [LT D] stated that she had reminded [the 
applicant] of the prior incident of failing to properly prepare for the 24-hour watch duty.  [LT D] 
told me that she discussed with [the applicant] specific ways to help prepare for a 24-hour watch 
duty following a personal leave period.  She used examples practiced by other controllers, such as 
coming in the night before to read all relevant information for the period since her last watch duty.  
I recall that [LT D] did inform me during the period of time that she as Supervisor was preparing 
[the applicant’s] annual Officer Evaluation Report (OER), that she intended to give [her] a mark of 
“four” for Planning and Preparedness due to the repeated incidents where [she] had not properly 
prepared for her 24-hour duty following a personal leave period.  I did not observe any indication 
of a conflict of interest. 
 
Following this second incident and the counseling session, [the applicant] improved her perform-
ance in this area.  There was not a repeat/related incident following the verbal counseling session 
between [LT D and the applicant].  She received a mark of “six” in Planning and Preparedness on 
her next annual evaluation. 
 

Declaration of CDR N (now CAPT N), the Reviewer of OERs 4, 5, and 6 

 
CDR N stated that, as chief of the SAR Branch, he indirectly supervised the applicant 
from July 2000 through July 2003.  He “was directly involved in monitoring her performance 
while she was on duty since all SAR case briefings and other significant events were briefed to 
me by the Command Center watch.”  Regarding the applicant’s complaint about the composition 
of her rating chain, he stated that the content of an OER is much more important than who signs 
it and that he himself was promoted to captain—the same rank as the Chief of Operations, whom 
the applicant alleged should have been her Reviewer—during the evaluation period for the dis-
puted OER and signed it as a captain.  CDR N stated that all of the controllers had the same 
rating chain with the Senior Controller, LT D, serving as Supervisor. 

 
CDR N stated that upon LT D’s departure from the District Command Center, another 
lieutenant, who was junior to the applicant, was appointed to be the Senior Controller.  The less 
senior lieutenant was appointed to that position, instead of the applicant, because of that lieuten-
ant’s “superior knowledge, skills and abilities as a SAR controller.  I made this decision with full 
knowledge of [the applicant’s] abilities at the time which, I believe, are accurately documented in 
the OER in question.” 

 
Regarding the applicant’s mark of 4 for “Planning and Preparedness,” CDR N stated that 

it was not based on an isolated incident as the applicant 

 
had a tendency during this OER period to be surprised by things during her watches.  This indi-
cated to me a less than superb ability planning ahead and being prepared for whatever a case may 
bring.  The mark of 4 represents good solid performance in this area, not superb skills, and accu-
rately represents her performance during this OER period. … The frequency of her being caught 
off guard by events was higher than that of her peers, all of whom I had the opportunity to directly 
interact with and observe on a wide variety of cases and situations. 
 
Regarding the mark of 4 on the comparison scale, CDR N stated the following: 
 
I  do  not  recall  ever  making  the  statement  attributed  to  me  [by  the  applicant]  since  I  do  not  set 
“always” or “never” rules for myself regarding evaluations.  Additionally, [the comparison scale] 
represents  a  comparison  of  this  officer  to  all  other  lieutenants  I  have  known, not a summary or 
average  of  the  numerical  marks  on  this  particular  OER.    Compared  to  all  the  lieutenants  I  had 
known at that point in my career, I can clearly and unequivocally stated that [the applicant] was a 
good performer, not an excellent performer, and marked accordingly on the comparison scale.  My 
action in not selecting her to be the Senior Controller clearly reflects that assessment of her per-
formance.  I do think it is important to note that [the applicant] was given a 7 in the health and well 
being dimension of this OER.  She clearly put emphasis and energy into this particular aspect of 
her work, much more so than she applied to her other duties.  She was counseled on this disparity 
by her chain of command several times. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

On August 2, 2007, the Chair sent a copy of the views of the Coast Guard to the applicant 

 
 
and invited her to respond within thirty days.  No response was received.  
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
 
Article  10.A.2.d.1.a.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  the  Supervisor  for  an  OER  is 
“[n]ormally the individual to whom the Reported-on Officer answers on a daily or frequent basis 
and from whom the Reported-on Officer receives the majority of direction and requirements.”  
Article  10.A.2.d.1.c.  states  that  the  Supervisor  for  an  OER  “will  normally  be  senior  to  the 
Reported-on  Officer.    However,  in  appropriate  situations,  the  Supervisor  may  be  designated, 
regardless of grade relative to the Reported-on Officer.” 
 

Article  10.A.2.e.1.c.  states  that  a  “Reporting  Officer  will  normally  be  senior  to  the 
Reported-on Officer.  Except for commanding officers, at least two year groups should normally 
separate these rating chain positions if they are of the same grade.  Commander (CGPC-opm) or 
Commander (CGPC-rpm) will handle exceptions to this policy on a case-by-case basis.” 
 
 
Article 10.A.2.g.2.b. states that a rating chain member shall be disqualified from carrying 
out her responsibilities and a substitute shall be designated when the rating chain member has 
been relieved for cause or is an interested party to an investigation or court of inquiry or in “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.” 
 
 
Article 10.A.2.g.2.c. states that if a commanding officer does not take action to disqualify 
a rating chain member and designate a substitute, “it is incumbent on the Reported-on Officer to 
identify to the next senior officer in the chain-of-command that an exception to the designated 
rating chain may exist.  This issue should be raised by the Reported-on Officer during the report-
ing period or within 30 days after the end of the reporting period.” 
 

Article 10.A.4.c.4. provides the following instructions for Supervisors completing their 
section  of  an  OER  (similar  instructions  are  provided  for  Reporting  Officers  in  Article 
10.A.4.c.7.): 
 

b.  For  each  evaluation  area,  the  Supervisor  shall  review  the  Reported-on  Officer’s  performance 
and qualities observed and noted during the reporting period. Then, for each of the performance 
dimensions, the Supervisor shall carefully read the standards and compare the Reported-on Offi-
cer’s  performance  to  the  level  of  performance  described  by  the  standards.  The  Supervisor  shall 
take care to compare the officer’s performance and qualities against the standards—not to other 
officers and not to the same officer in a previous reporting period. After determining which block 
best describes the Reported-on Officer’s performance and qualities during the marking period, the 
Supervisor fills in the appropriate circle on the form in ink. 

d. In the “comments” block following each evaluation area, the Supervisor shall include comments 
citing specific aspects of the Reported-on Officer’s performance and behavior for each mark that 
deviates from a four. The Supervisor shall draw on his or her observations, those of any secondary 
Supervisors, and other information accumulated during the reporting period. 
 
e. Comments should amplify and be consistent with the numerical evaluations. They should iden-
tify specific strengths and weaknesses in performance. Comments must be sufficiently specific to 
paint a succinct picture of the officer’s performance and qualities which compares reasonably with 
the picture defined by the standards marked on the performance dimensions in the evaluation area. 

●  ●  ● 

Mere repetition or paraphrasing of the standards is not sufficient narrative justification for below 
or above standard marks. 

g. A mark of four represents the expected standard of performance. Additional specific perform-
ance  observations  must  be  included  when  an  officer  has  been  assigned  a  mark  of  five  or six to 
show how they exceeded this high level of performance. Those assigned the superlative mark of 
seven should have specific comments demonstrating how they exceeded the six standard block. 

●  ●  ● 

 

Article 10.A.4.c.8.a. states that on the comparison scale in an OER, a Reporting Officer 
“shall fill in the circle that most closely reflects the Reporting Officer’s ranking of the Reported-
on Officer relative to all other officers of the same grade the Reporting Officer has known.” 

 
Article 10.A.4.g. allows an officer to submit a written OER Reply within fourteen days of 
receiving an OER in order to “express a view of performance which may differ from that of a 
rating official.”  The OER Reply must be “performance-oriented” and may not address interper-
sonal relations or include “a personal opinion of the abilities or qualities of a rating chain mem-
ber.”  An OER Reply is forwarded to CGPC through the rating chain, whose endorsements may 
include comments about the OER Reply. 

 
On  an  OER  form,  the  written  standards  for  the  numerical  marks  under  “Planning  and 

Preparedness” appear as follows: 

 

Planning and 
Preparedness 
Ability to antici-
pate, determine 
goals, identify 
relevant informa-
tion, set priorities 
and deadlines, 
and develop 
strategies 

1 
 
 
 
 
 
○ 

Got caught by the 
unexpected; appeared to 
be controlled by events.  
Set vague or unrealistic 
goals.  Used unreason-
able criteria to set priori-
ties and deadlines.  
Rarely had plan of 
action.  Failed to focus 
on relevant information. 

○ 

3 
 
 
 
 
 
○ 

Consistently prepared.  
Set high but realistic 
goals.  Used sound cri-
teria to set priorities and 
deadlines.  Used quality 
tools and processes to 
develop action plans.  
Identified key informa-
tion.  Kept supervisors 
and stakeholders 
informed. 

● 

5 
 
 
 
 
 
○ 

Exceptional preparation.  
Always looked beyond 
immediate events or prob-
lems.  Skillfully balanced 
competing demands.  
Developed strategies with 
contingency plans.  
Assessed all aspects of 
problems, including 
underlying issues and 
impact. 

○ 

7 
 
 
 
 
 
○ 

 
For “Using Results,” the written standard for a mark of 4 is “Effectively managed a vari-
ety of activities with available resources …,” while the standard for a mark of 6 is “Unusually 
skilled at bringing scarce resources to bear on the most critical of competing demands. …” 

 
For “Results/Effectiveness,” the standard for a mark of 4 is “Got the job done in all rou-
tine situations and in many unusual ones …,” while the standard for a mark of 6 is “Maintained 
optimal balance among quality, quantity, and timeliness of work. …” 

 
For “Adaptability,” the standard for a mark of 4 is “Receptive to change, new informa-
tion, and technology …,” while the standard for a mark of 6 is “Rapidly assessed and adjusted to 
changing conditions, new information and technology. …” 

 
For “Professional Competence,” the standard for a mark of 4 is “Competent and credible 
authority on specialty or operational issues …,” while the standard for a mark of 6 is “Superior 
expertise; advice and actions showed great breadth and depth of knowledge.” 

 

PRIOR SIMILAR CASES 

 
BCMR Docket No. 220-91 
 
 
In BCMR Docket No. 220-91, the applicant was the Executive Officer of his unit and his 
Commanding  Officer  (CO)  served  as  both  the Supervisor and Reporting Officer for his OER.  
The  applicant  and  his  CO  were  both  commanders  and  competed  for  selection  for  captain  the 
same year that the disputed OER was entered in the applicant’s record.  The CO was selected for 
promotion, but the applicant was not.  The OER Reviewer was located 700 miles away and had 
little to no opportunity to observe the applicant’s performance.  The disputed OER, which con-
tained low marks of 3 and very negative comments, contrasted greatly with the applicant’s other 
OERs, in which he received mostly marks of 6 in the performance categories and on the com-
parison scale.  The Reviewer admitted that a few weeks before the end of the evaluation period, 
he became aware of a significant “rift” between the applicant and the CO but decided to let “the 
transfer and OER processes ‘run their course.’” 
 
 
The applicant in Docket No. 220-91 proved the existence of some significant, detrimental 
factual errors in the OER prepared by the CO and alleged that the CO should have been disquali-
fied from his rating chain under Article 10.A.2.g.2. of the Personnel Manual because they were 
competing against each other for promotion to captain.  The Coast Guard recommended denial of 
relief based on the lack of any violation of the Personnel Manual, which allows a CO to serve as 
both a Supervisor and Reporting Officer for an OER and to serve as a Reporting Officer even if 
he or she is not more than two years senior to the Reported-on Officer. 
 
 
The Board noted the errors in the disputed OER and the “marked difference” between it 
and the applicant’s other OERs and found that the CO’s position as both Supervisor and Report-
ing Officer, though not an error or injustice per se, deprived the applicant of the “‘check and bal-
ance’ customarily present in the evaluation process—that of having possibly undeserved marks 
or comments subject to review and correction by another officer who is also familiar with the 
actual performance of the Reported-on Officer.”  The Board also found that “the fact that the 
[CO] was in the same promotion pool as the applicant created a special need [for the Reviewer] 
to ensure that the OER process resulted in a fully objective evaluation.”  However, the Reviewer 
had merely accepted the CO’s view of the applicant’s performance and had failed to confirm it 
by seeking input from other sources even though he knew of a “rift” between them.   
 

The Board concluded that “[t]aken together, these factors vitiate the usual presumption of 
administrative regularity, and, on balance, indicate that the applicant suffered an injustice.  See 
BCMR  No.6-89.    The  disputed  OER  in  its  entirety,  as  well  as  related  documents,  must  be 
removed from the applicant’s record.”  The Board removed the disputed OER and the applicant’s 
failures of selection from his record and ordered the Coast Guard to offer to return him to active 
duty  with  no  break  in  service  if  the  applicant  had  already  been  separated  from  active  duty 
because of his two failures of selection.  The delegate of the Secretary approved the recommend-
ed decision of the Board in Docket No. 220-91. 
 

BCMR Docket No. 151-92 
 
 
In BCMR Docket No. 151-92, the applicant and his Supervisor were both commanders, 
and they competed for selection for captain the same year that the disputed OER was entered in 
the applicant’s record.  The applicant alleged that this Supervisor should have been disqualified 
from his rating chain.  He further alleged that the head of his division, to whom he also reported, 
was not but should have been consulted about his marks and that many of the marks and com-
ments were “inaccurate or seriously misleading.”  The Coast Guard recommended that the Board 
deny relief based on an alleged lack of evidence of error in the disputed OER.   
 

The  Board,  however,  found  that  several  of  the  Supervisor’s  criticisms  were  invalid  or 
misleading and that the Supervisor had not counseled the applicant about his alleged performance 
problems.  The Board further found that, as in Docket No. 220-91, there was no assurance of an 
objective evaluation in this case.    The Board stated that the “appearance of a conflict of interest 
between  the  applicant  and  Supervisor  and  the  uncorroborated  statements  [by  the  Supervisor] 
quoted in the preceding finding create a prima facie case for the grant of relief,” which the Coast 
Guard did not rebut by submitting any signed statements from the rating chain.  Therefore, the 
Board recommended that the disputed OER and the applicant’s failures of selection be removed 
from his record. 

 
The delegate of the Secretary concurred in most of the Board’s findings and in the recom-
mended relief.  She noted additional inconsistencies and errors in the disputed OER, noted that 
the numerical marks and comparison scale mark of 3 therein were significantly lower than the 
applicant’s prior marks, and found the following: 

 
The  fact  that  the  Supervisor  was  in  the  same  promotion  pool  as  the  applicant,  and  in  fact  had 
already been passed over [once], could have created a motive for him to be unduly harsh in his 
assessment of the applicant.  Despite the appropriateness of taking additional measures to ensure 
objectivity under the circumstances, the Coast Guard failed to ensure that input from his Supervi-
sor for a portion of the evaluation period was obtained, overlooked inconsistencies within the OER 
itself, and let stand evidently unfounded or unfair comments in the OER.  Taken together, these 
factors  indicate  that  [the]  OER  fails  to  reflect  a  reasonably  accurate  picture  of  the  Reported-on 
Officer’s performance and potential, constituting error on the part of the Coast Guard.  Cf.  BCMR 
No. 220-91. 

 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions based on the applicant's military 

 
 
record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submissions, and applicable law: 
 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552.  

1. 

The application was timely.3 
 

2. 

The applicant requested an oral hearing before the Board.  The Chair, acting pur-
suant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.51, denied the request and recommended disposition of the case without 
a hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommendation. 
                                                 
3 Detweiler v. Pena, 38 F.3d 591, 598 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (holding that section 205 of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil 
Relief Act of 1940 “tolls the BCMR’s limitations period during a servicemember’s period of active duty”). 

 
3. 

5. 

4. 

 
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 marks of 4 she received on the disputed OER were an 
erroneous result of her Supervisor’s desire to make her less competitive than the Supervisor for 
promotion to LCDR.  To establish that an OER is erroneous or unjust, an applicant must prove 
that it was adversely affected by (a) a “misstatement of significant hard fact,” (b) a “clear and 
prejudicial violation of a statute or regulation,” or (c) factors that “had no business being in the 
rating  process.”4    The  Board  begins  its  analysis  in  every  case  by  presuming  that  the  disputed 
OER is correct as it appears in the record, and the applicant bears the burden of proving by a pre-
ponderance of the evidence that it is erroneous or unjust.5  Absent evidence to the contrary, the 
Board  presumes  that  the  applicant’s  Supervisor  and  Reporting  Officer  prepared  the  disputed 
OER “correctly, lawfully, and in good faith”6—i.e., that the Supervisor did not allow the fact that 
she and the applicant were competing for promotion to LCDR that summer to affect her prepara-
tion of the OER and that both the Supervisor and Reporting Officer prepared the OER in accor-
dance with their best professional judgment of the applicant’s performance during the evaluation 
period. 
 
The applicant has failed to prove the existence of a “misstatement of significant 
 
hard fact” in the disputed OER.  She has not submitted evidence that contradicts any of the writ-
ten  comments.    Although  as  she  alleged,  the  written  comments  could  have  supported  higher 
marks, the language used in the disputed OER is not so laudatory as to make the corresponding 
marks inconsistent.  Moreover, as Article 10.A.4.c.4. of the Personnel Manual states, a Supervi-
sor is not supposed to write comments first and then assign numerical marks that reflect the com-
ments, but to assign numerical marks first, by comparing the Reported-on Officer’s performance 
to the written standards on the OER form, and then to prepare comments that explain any devia-
tion from a mark of 4, which is the “expected standard of performance.”  Given the instructions 
in Article 10.A.4.c.4. and the written standards on the OER form, the Board finds that the Super-
visor’s  use  of  the  words  “excellent”  and  “exceptional”  in  describing  certain  examples  of  the 
applicant’s performance reasonably explains the assignment of marks of 5 in most of the cate-
gories in block 3 and does not prove that the Supervisor erred in failing to assign marks of 6 in 
those categories.  Nor does the applicant’s high score on the Standardization Team written test 
convince  the  Board  that  her  overall  performance  in  the  “Planning  and Preparedness” category 
exceeded the standard for a mark of 4 during the evaluation period.   
 
 
The applicant alleged that the mark of 4 she received for “Planning and Prepared-
ness” was erroneously based upon a single incident rather than her overall performance in that 
category.  The rating chain’s declarations indicate that her lack of preparedness on one important 
occasion was a significant factor in the assignment of the mark.  However, the declarations also 
describe other examples of insufficient or eleventh-hour planning and preparation by the appli-
cant.  The Supervisor stated that she balanced these incidents against the fact that the applicant 
was “very competent in some areas of ‘Planning and Preparedness’” when she assigned the mark 
                                                 
4 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. 
5 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b). 
6 Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 
1979). 

6. 

8. 

7. 

of 4.  The applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the mark of 4 was 
based erroneously or unfairly on a single incident. 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  her  Reviewer  told  her  that  the  mark  of  4  on  the 
comparison scale in the disputed OER was based solely on the mark of 4 she received for “Plan-
ning and Preparedness.”  However, the Reviewer has denied making this comment, and the com-
parison scale on an OER is completed by the Reporting Officer, not the Reviewer.  The Board 
notes that the applicant received higher marks in some categories on her subsequent OER as a 
controller, which was prepared by a different Supervisor, but that officer indicated in his declara-
tion that the applicant’s performance had improved by the next evaluation period.  Moreover, the 
applicant  failed  to  take  advantage  of  the  opportunity  to  file  an  OER  Reply,  under  Article 
10.A.4.g., which may be considered evidence that she accepted the accuracy of the disputed OER 
at the time she received it.  The Board finds that the applicant has not proved by a preponderance 
of the evidence that the mark of 4 on the comparison scale or any of the numerical marks in the 
disputed OER was erroneous or unjust. 
 
 
The applicant has failed to prove that the disputed OER was adversely affected by 
a “clear and prejudicial violation of a statute or regulation.”  She has not shown that she was 
entitled to a different rating chain under the regulations.  Her Supervisor was senior to her, in 
accordance with Article 10.A.2.d.1.c. of the Personnel Manual.  In addition, as the Senior Con-
troller, the Supervisor was apparently a person to whom the applicant answered on a daily or fre-
quent basis.  The record indicates that the Chief and Assistant Chief of the SAR Branch, who 
served as the Reviewer and Reporting Officer, respectively, also had opportunities to observe and 
assess her performance as a controller and watchstander.  Furthermore, as in BCMR Docket Nos. 
220-91 and 151-92, the Board does not find that being in the same promotion pool as the appli-
cant  per  se  disqualified  the  Supervisor  from  her  rating  chain  under Article 10.A.2.g.2.b.  The 
mere fact that they were both competing for promotion to LCDR that summer did not raise a sub-
stantial question as to whether the applicant received a fair and accurate OER.  The Board notes 
that  there  is  no  evidence  that  applicant  timely  challenged  LT  D’s  service  as  her  Supervisor 
through her commanding officer or his superior as allowed under Article 10.A.2.g.2.c. 
 
 
As stated in BCMR Docket Nos. 220-91 and 151-92, having a Reported-on Offi-
cer and a rating official in the same promotion pool “create[s] a special need to ensure that the 
OER process resulted in a fully objective evaluation.”  The competition for promotion presents at 
least the possibility that the rating official’s preparation of the OER will be affected by a per-
ceived conflict of interest, a factor “had no business being in the rating process.”7  Unlike the 
applicants in Docket Nos. 220-91 and 151-92, however, the applicant in this case has not proved 
the existence of any factual errors in the disputed OER, which would be a sign of conflict-of-
interest-based  prejudice,  and  the  marks  in  the  disputed  OER  are  not  significantly  lower  than 
others she received as a lieutenant and controller.  In addition, unlike the applicant in Docket No. 
220-91, the applicant in this case had three different officers, all of whom observed her work, 
serve on her rating chain.  Thus, she was not deprived of the “‘check and balance’ customarily 
present in the evaluation process.”  Unlike the applicant in Docket No. 151-92, the applicant in 
this case was counseled on her lack of preparation during the evaluation period.  The declarations 
of the Reporting Officer and Reviewer indicate that they agreed with the Supervisor’s assessment 
                                                 
7 Germano, at 1460. 

of the applicant’s performance during the evaluation period and therefore chose a lieutenant who 
was  junior  to  the  applicant  to  serve  as  the  Senior  Controller  when  LT  D  left.    Moreover,  the 
Reporting  Officer  stated  in  his  declaration  that  he  did not see “any indication of a conflict of 
interest”  between  the  Supervisor  and  the  applicant.”    Therefore,  the  record  before  the  Board 
provides assurance that the applicant received an objective OER, and the Board finds no grounds 
for concluding that the disputed OER was adversely affected by a factor “had no business being 
in the rating process.”   
 
 
Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied because she has not proved 
by a preponderance of the evidence that the disputed OER was adversely affected by (a) a “mis-
statement of significant hard fact,” (b) a “clear and prejudicial violation of a statute or regula-
tion,” or (c) factors that “had no business being in the rating process.”8   
 
 

 
9. 

 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

                                                 
8 Id. 

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCGR, for correction of her 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

        

 
 George J. Jordan 

 

 

 
 James E. McLeod 

 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

military record is denied.