DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2007-137 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
   

 

 

FINAL DECISION 

 
 
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 application on May 25, 
2007, upon receipt of the applicant’s completed application and subsequently prepared the final 
decision as required by 33 CFR § 52.61(c). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated February 26, 2009, is approved and signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 
 
 The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  her  military  record  by  removing  an  Officer 
Evaluation  Report  (OER)  for  the  period  February  26,  2003  to  September  30,  2003  (disputed 
OER).   She also requested to be reconsidered for promotion to LT, and if selected for promotion 
to that grade, that she  receive a  retroactive date of rank, with back pay and allowances.   The 
applicant was not selected for promotion by the calendar year 2006 or 2007 LT selection board.  
She was separated from active duty on June 30, 2008.   
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 

 
The applicant alleged that the disputed OER should be removed from her record because 
the individual who signed as her supervisor, a chief warrant officer - W2 (CWO2), was junior to 
her in rank.  During the period covered by the disputed OER the applicant was an ensign.  The 
applicant claimed that having a CWO sign her OER as supervisor was not in accordance with 
Coast Guard policy and that a CWO cannot mark an officer of higher grade. 
 

On September 4, 2007, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Coast Guard stating 
that under Article 10.A.2.d. a supervisor may be junior to the reported-on officer.  This provision 
of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  normally  the  supervisor  will  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.  The advisory stated that the applicant did not explain 
why she believes the supervisor should not have served as her supervisor other than being of a 

lower rank.  Although, the Coast Guard recommended denial of the application as it stood, it also 
recommended that the Chair allow the applicant an opportunity to submit additional evidence in 
accordance with 38 CFR § 52.43(a).   

 
The applicant was granted an extension of time to submit additional evidence in her case.  
On May 23, 2008, the Board received additional evidence from the applicant consisting of her 
own  written  statement  and  three  written  statements  from  other  officers  who  served  with  the 
applicant during the period covered by the disputed OER. 

 

Applicant’s Supplemental Statement 

 
In her supplemental statement, the applicant asked that the disputed OER be removed and 
replaced with an OER for continuity purposes only because her supervisor was an officer of a 
lower rank, because her “start as a newly commissioned officer was unrealistic,” because it was  
“impossible [for her] to have received a fair evaluation due the [unit’s] impropriety, indiscretion, 
and partiality,” because  she was  “unfairly  persecuted for  allegedly  compromising a non-Coast 
Guard  test,”  because  she  was  “subjected  to  a  hostile  work  climate/atmosphere  throughout  her 
entire  tour,”  and  because  she  was  “never  allowed  an  opportunity  to  recover  from  her  first 
evaluation.” 

 
The applicant stated that she reported to Group San Francisco as a newly commissioned 
ensign just out of officer candidate school. She was assigned as an over billet within the training 
department.    She  stated  that  the  training  division  was  composed  of  1  CWO2  and  5  enlisted 
members.  She stated that she was not given a desk but a couch to work from, was told to read 
the weapons manual for her prospective assignment as the weapons officer, and was informed 
that the CWO2 would be her supervisor.  The applicant stated that a week into her assignment 
the CWO2 went on sick leave for several weeks.  Upon the CWO2’s return, the division moved 
and the applicant was told that she would be sharing an office with the CWO2, but instead she 
was assigned to share a large room containing survival gear with a petty officer first class.  The 
applicant contended that she was given very little direction on what she needed to do to become 
qualified  for  her  weapons  officer  assignment.    She  participated  in  some  ready  for  operation 
(RFO) drills with very little feedback from the CWO2 although she requested it.  The applicant 
stated that the CWO2 belittled her in front of the crew when expressing her displeasure with a 
project that the applicant submitted.    

 
The applicant stated that the unit expressed displeasure with her for providing the crew 
with reference points to study for an examination the applicant developed that the crew would 
take during RFO.  Apparently, the CO and the CWO2 thought that the applicant had acted to 
compromise the test and she was criticized for it in several places in the disputed OER.  The 
applicant  stated  that  the  exam  she  created  was  a  pre-fabricated  test  and  not  an  end  of  course 
exam or one that needed to be secured. 
 

The applicant stated that after the testing incident she received assignments that had very 
little merit, and that the CWO2 continued to belittle her.  The applicant stated that although she 
was senior, the CWO2 refused to salute her when they were outside and would stand to the right 
of the applicant when in ranks during inspections.  The applicant stated that eventually she was 

 

moved to the operations division and she was told upon reporting that she was being watched 
due to her past error in judgment.  

 
 The applicant alleged that she was required to work in a hostile environment.  She stated 
that in the operations department a “me against them” mentality existed and that the operations 
and assistant operations officer were constantly arguing in front of enlisted members and PBS 
skippers.  (The applicant did not request any correction to the OERs covering her assignment in 
the operations department.)   

Supplemental Statements Submitted by the Applicant 

 
1.  The applicant submitted a statement from LT G who was assigned to the unit at the 
same  time  as  the  applicant.    LT  G  stated  that  she  reported  to  the  operations  division  after 
graduating from officer candidate school.  She indicated that she received similar treatment to 
that described by the applicant in that when she reported she did not have a desk and received 
very little direction and guidance on how to become qualified to assume her duties.  She stated 
that she was unfairly  accused of an inappropriate relationship with an enlisted member which 
caused her some angst.  As to the applicant, LT G stated the following:   

 
In March 2003, we would be getting a new ensign [the applicant].  On my own, I 
started putting things together, trying to make sure that she would not get treated 
as  I had upon her arrival.  When [the applicant] arrived, she was at first in the 
main  group  staff  building  in  a  downstairs  office,  but  with  no  desk  of  her  own.  
She  shared  a  space  with  her  boss,  a  chief  warrant  officer.    Even  though  [the 
applicant] is senior in rank and was given the title of weapons officer, the CWO2 
was her boss-which made no sense to me at all.  This CWO2 . . . had no respect 
for  ensigns  as  she  had  refused  to  salute  me  every  time  we  passed  each  other 
outside  and  generally  looked  at  me  with  disdain.    I  saw  [the  applicant]  being 
treated the same way.  She tried to learn the ins and outs of being the weapons 
officer but was given little to no guidance by the CWO2.  [The applicant] also 
became  a  member  of  the  training  department  under  [the  CWO2].    That 
department moved to another building on the base and there [the applicant] was 
treated as a subordinate of not only the CWO2, but now also the BMC.  This was 
not an ideal situation at all.   I’m not sure how the command expected the new 
officer to learn leadership of others when she had no one to lead and was being 
bossed around by those of lesser rank.    

I was told at one point that [the applicant] and I were going to switch places about 
half way through our tours so we could learn more about various officer jobs . . . I 
was dreading the transfer down to the training and weapons department due to the 
way I had seen [the applicant] belittled and demeaned since her arrival . . .  Sure 
enough I received the same “we are better than you” attitude and treatment from 
the  BMC  and  CWO2.    During  uniform  inspections,  when  we  all  stood  at  the 
flagpole by department, in rank order, [the CWO2] made a big show of standing 
ahead of me in the ranks.  When I bought it up, I was told by the command to just 

 

let her stand ahead of me, thereby showing all the enlisted folks in the command 
that ensigns mean nothing  
. . .   
 
In February I got a call from my detailer asking which ship I wanted to go to . . .  I 
had to ask permission from someone 2 pay grades under me if I could depart in 
April in order to avoid reporting to a unit in a foreign port  . . . On March 25, 
2004, I was promoted to LTJG, and [the CWO2] made a comment about getting to 
boss around a LTJG.  Although she may have meant it as a joke, it did not sit well 
with me.  When I had my exit interviews with the XO  . . . and CO, I decided to 
tell them everything I had been through instead of just forgetting it and moving on 
with my life.  I didn’t want anyone else to have to go through what [the applicant] 
and myself had.  Neither of them knew anything about some of the things that 
were going on they said.  I told them that sending an ensign to work for a CWO2 
was a horrible idea and didn’t work for either [the applicant] or myself.  [The XO] 
agreed with that.  The next ensign that reported  . . . did not have to go work for 
[the CWO2], and I think his tour went much more smoothly since the command 
seemed to have adjusted their practices based on the way [the applicant] and I had 
been set up to fail from the first day we both reported. 

 
 
2.  The applicant submitted a statement from LT L who stated that she was assigned to the 
applicant’s unit from July 2003 through August 2006.  She stated that when she arrived she did 
not receive any guidance as to what her new job entailed.  She stated that she was assigned a 
desk but no one walked her through a check in or gave her any idea of what she was supposed to 
be doing.  She stated that she was told in an interview with the operations officer that she needed 
to mentor the female ensigns at the unit, specifically the applicant because of the problems the 
CWO2 indicated she had with the applicant.  
 

I believe that the atmosphere of [the unit] at the time was very hostile towards the female 
junior officers.  I was fortunate that I had been to two previous units, was comfortable standing 
my ground with my supervisor, and did not feel pressured to listen to his critiques.  LT L further 
stated:  
 
As  I  watched more  closely,  I saw that [the  CWO2] often looked for reasons to 
gossip  about  her  “wayward  ensign”  and  looked  forward  to  the  opportunity  to 
write her OER as her supervisor.  [The CWO2] boasted about being “senior” to 
the ensigns and took every opportunity to belittle [the applicant] or set her up for 
failure  by  withholding  information  that  would  be  important  in  carrying  out  her 
job.    As  a  member  of  the  training  department,  [the  applicant]  did  not  have  a 
supervisor or a mentor willing to take the time to guide her toward success.  [The 
applicant] relied on the members of her department to guide her in completing her 
tasks, but did not have anybody there willing to take the time to train her in both 
her job, and in setting an example of what she should be as an officer.  Instead, 
her  direct  supervisor  was  looking  for  reasons  to  take  note  of  [the  applicant’s] 
shortcomings, and rather than taking those opportunities to teach [the applicant] 

 

the  correct  procedure,  she  would  document  them  in  the  OER  upon  the  first 
occurrence. 
 
 
LT  L  stated  that  in  December  2003,  the  applicant  was  moved  from  the  training 
department  to  the  operations  department,  where  she  eventually  became  the  applicant’s 
supervisor.  LT L further stated: 
 

I drafted [the applicant’s] last OER at Group San Francisco.  After drafting the 
OER, I submitted it to the operations officer for review where he was going to 
sign it as the supervisor.  When I submitted it, I got called into a meeting with [the 
supervisor] and was told that there was no way the OER would be approved by 
the XO . . . or the CO . . . I subsequently went into a meeting with the [XO] and 
the [operations officer] to defend the marks and the supporting documentation I 
had written for those marks.  In that meeting, I was told to change the marks, I 
cited the Personnel manual, and said that I would not change the first two pages 
and  stated  that  the  command  was  free  to  make  changes  after  the  supervisor’s 
signature.   [The operations officer] tried to compromise since he was the actual 
supervisor and lowered a couple of the marks and changed some of the comments 
I had written to make the XO happy, knowing that I would be frustrated about his 
lack  of  willingness  to  stand  up  for  his  subordinate.    The  XO  and  CO  made 
significant changes to the last page of the OER to indicate that [the applicant] was 
not a great performer.   
 
I believe that [the applicant] was not given the opportunity to succeed throughout 
her entire assignment at [the unit].  [The applicant] was allowed to fail from the 
beginning of her assignment by being assigned to the training department to work 
for a newly commissioned [CWO2] who clearly lacked the ability to be a leader 
and  a  mentor.    Furthermore,  [the  applicant’s]  first  supervisor  in  the  operations 
department  continued  to  rate  her  performance  unfairly  and  did  not  give  [the 
applicant] the opportunity to start fresh on each OER.  [The applicant] is a great 
officer, has admirable qualities, and has learned a lot form her experiences at [the 
unit].   

 
 
3.      The applicant submitted a statement from LT V who was assigned to the applicant’s 
unit  from  October  1999  through  March  2005.    LT  V  stated  that  there  was  an  attitude  of 
aggression  between  the  operations  officer  and  the  assistant  operations  officer.    They  would 
debate work load, operations decisions, personnel leave requests and many other topics in front 
of other subordinates.  LT V also stated the following: 
 

[The applicant] told me what she had experienced while assigned to the training 
division  and  the  treatment  she  received  by  [the  CWO2]  while  under  her 
supervision.  I explained that it was my understanding that it was not a normal 
situation for a [junior officer] to be placed under a warrant officer.  Also, it made 
no sense to me that a CWO2 was writing her OER.  I advised her that she should 
address the issue through her chain of command.  However, she was apprehensive 
to take this course due to the climate at the time.   

 
My experience with [the applicant] has been characterized as a junior officer with 
excellent organizational skills coupled with a strong internal customer focus.  She 
also makes follow through a key element to any project.  She is a vital member of 
the community, along with keeping up with daily duties.  It is my opinion that [the 
applicant’s] first OER should be removed from her record.  In addition, I feel that 
she should be reconsidered for promotion to Lieutenant.   
  

 
Disputed OER 
 

In  Block  4  (communications),  the  applicant  received  4s  in  speaking  and  listening  and 

The applicant was assigned as the Group weapons officer during the period covered by 
the  disputed  OER.    It  consists  of  three  parts:    the  supervisor’s  portion,  the  reporting  officer’s 
portion, and the reviewing officer’s portion.    
 
Supervisor’s Portion  
 
 
In Block 3 (performance of duties) of the disputed OER, the applicant received marks of 
4 in planning and preparedness, using resources, and adaptability.1  She received marks of 3 in 
results/effectiveness and professional competence.  In the comment section, the supervisor wrote 
that  the  applicant  failed  to  fully  understand  weapons  procedures  and  policies  necessitating 
excessive  oversight  throughout  the  period  and  little  progress  on  most  weapons  issues.       The 
supervisor also criticized the applicant for the compromise of an RFO test.   
 
 
writing.   
 
 
In Block 5 (leadership skills), the applicant received a mark of 5 in looking out for others.  
She  received  marks  of  4  in  developing  others,  directing  others,  workplace  climate,  and 
evaluations.  She received a mark of 3 in teamwork.  The supervisor wrote that the applicant had 
“[p]erodic  inability  to  maintain  appropriate  level  of  familiarity  with  enlisted  personnel 
sometimes undermined her position as an officer.”  The supervisor again wrote that the applicant 
improperly provided copy of RFO test to unit being inspected.   
 
Reporting Officer’s Portion  
 
 
In Block 8 of the reporting officer's section of the OER, the applicant received marks of 4 
in  initiative,  professional  presence,  and  health  and  well  being.    She  received  marks  of  3  in 
judgment and responsibility.  The applicant was criticized again for compromising an RFO test 
                                                 
1 Article 10.A.2.b.4.b. of the Personnel Manual states that for each evaluation area, the supervisor shall review the 
reported-on  officer’s  performance  and  qualities  observed  and  noted  during  the  reporting  period.    Next,  the 
supervisor  shall  carefully  read  the  standards  and  compare  the  reported-on  officer’s  performance  to  the  level  of 
performance  described  by  the  standards.    After  determining  which  block  best  describes  the  reported  on  officer’s 
performance and qualities, the supervisor shall fill in the appropriate circle on the form.  Subsection e. states that 
comments  should  amplify  and  be  consistent  with  the  numerical  evaluations,  and  they  should  identify  specific 
strengths  and  weaknesses  in  performance.    Further,  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. 

which, the reporting officer stated showed a willingness to engage in less than ethical behavior 
despite full knowledge of the potential negative impact.  The reporting  officer also noted that 
sometimes the applicant did not follow-up in other work areas.  The reporting officer stated that 
the applicant was developing a supervisory style based upon her ability to interact with a wide 
variety of individuals rather than based on her rank.   
 
On the comparison scale in Block 92 where the reporting officer compared the applicant 
 
to others of the same grade whom he has known in his career, the applicant was marked in the 
second  oval  (of  seven,  with  the  seventh  oval  being  the  highest).   A  mark  in  the  second  oval 
means that the reporting officer rated the applicant as a “qualified officer.”  
 
 
future service as follows:3 
 

In  block  10,  the  reporting  officer  evaluated  and  described  the  applicant's  potential  for 

[The applicant] has the basic skills necessary to succeed in the Coast Guard.  She 
is  maturing  as  an  officer.    She  possesses  a  great  deal  of  enthusiasm  for  any 
tasking.    Her  transfer  to  the  Group  Operations  dept  during  the  next  reporting 
period will compliment her training and RFO experience.  Likewise, she will have 
additional  supervisory  responsibilities  that  will  enable  her  to  refine  her 
supervisory  skills  and  techniques.    [The  applicant’s]  greatest  challenge  is 
developing time management and work prioritization skills.  She also needs to set 
appropriate  limits  to  ensure  interaction  without  undue  familiarity  with  junior 
personnel.  Should be ready for promotion w/more experience.   

The reviewer authenticated the OER without comment by signing and dating it.   

 
Reviewer’s Authentication  
 
 
 
Applicant’s Other OERs 
 
 
The applicant’s marks on her other subsequent ensign OER were fourteen 4s and four 5s.  
She was given a 4 on the comparison scale mark, which described her as an officer who is one of 
the many competent professionals who form the majority of this grade.  She was recommended 
for promotion with her peers. 
 
 
The applicant received 5 OERs in the grade of LTJG.  The first two were at the unit in 
which she received the disputed OER.  Her marks on these OERs consisted of 4s, with several 3s 
                                                 
2  Article  10.A.2.b.8.a.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  the  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.  The provision further provides that Block 9 represents a relative ranking of 
the  reported-on  officer,  not  necessarily  a  trend  of  performance.    Thus  from  period  to  period,  an  officer  could 
improve in performance but drop a category on the comparison scale.   
3 Article 10.A.2.b.9.a. of the Personnel Manual states that  the reporting officer shall comment on the reported-of 
officer’s potential for greater leadership roles and responsibilities and shall limit such comments to the performance 
or conduct demonstrated during the reporting period.  Article 10.A.2.b.9.b. states that comments in Block 10 reflect 
the  judgment  of  the  reporting  officer,  and  the  reporting  officer  may  include  a  recommendation  for  or  against 
promotion to the next higher grade. 

and 5s.  On the comparison scale she was marked in the third block.  In block 10 (potential) of 
one OER, the applicant was not recommended for promotion “due to repeated lapses in judgment 
and organizational skills.”  The reporting officer noted that she had not progressed as would be 
expected after nearly a full tour at that unit.  In block 10 of the other OER, the reporting officer 
wrote that “Upon successful completion of staff assignment, this officer could be promoted with 
peers.”   
 
The last three LTJG OERs covered the applicant’s assignment to  PACAREA Operation 
 
Planning.  Her marks consisted mostly 5s and 6s with one 4 and two 7s.  Her comparison scale 
marks for the OERs were 5, 5, & 6. 
 

SUPPLEMENTARY VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On December 11, 2008, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 
an advisory opinion reaffirming its recommendation that the Board deny relief to the applicant.  
With  respect  to  the  supplemental  evidence  submitted  by  the  applicant,  the  JAG  stated  the 
following: 
 

[The  applicant]  is  basically  stating  she  disagrees  with  the  marks  and  how  her 
chain  of  command  arrived  at  them.    They  do  not  amount  to  a  violation  of  the 
Coast  Guard  policy  or  present  an  instance  of  manifest  injustice.    She  points  to 
nothing in the OER that is a misstatement of fact, only that she disagrees that the 
performance  described  merited  the  marks  she  received.    Those  are  insufficient 
bases to grant relief. 
 
With  regard  to  allegation  about  hostile  work  environment,  [the  applicant] 
describes,  and  provides  corroborating  information,  an  atmosphere  within  the 
command, that, taken at face value, was tense and unpleasant and a command that 
did not do a good job leading its junior staff officers.  But [the applicant] alleges 
no  acts  that  her  female  warrant  officer  supervisor  or  others  in  her  chain  of 
command  took  that  were  based  on  her  gender,  or  membership  in  any  other 
protected  class.    Nor  does  she  allege  disparate  treatment.   The  information  she 
provided indicates all of the junior officers were treated badly.  Thus, the evidence 
she provided does not, in our opinion, demonstrate a hostile work environment.  
And again, she does not allege that anything in the OER is inaccurate, just that 
she does not believe the marks and the matters referred to in the OER accurately 
reflect her performance.  This is insufficient to grant the relief she seeks. 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  January  8,  2009,  the  applicant  responded  to  the  supplemental  views  of  the  Coast 
Guard and disagreed with them.  She stated that she disagreed with the entire OER because it 
was written by a warrant officer.  She further stated the following: 
 

The method of how and where I was placed was not of a conventional method.  I 
was  an  over  billet  and  the  command  had  no  place  to  put  me.    The  Personnel 

Manual states that a “supervisor will normally be senior to the reported-on officer.  
However in “appropriate situations, the supervisor may be designated regardless 
of  grade.”  The  Manual  does  not  even  define  what  is  considered  “appropriate” 
circumstances.    I  believe  the  method  in  which  I  was  placed  under  the  warrant 
officer was not an appropriate situation or an ideal start for a newly commissioned 
officer.  I addressed this issue with my command, however, I was overruled.   
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  she  disagreed  with  the  advisory  opinion  that  she  did  not 
demonstrate that she suffered a hostile work environment.  The applicant stated the fact that the 
CWO2 refused to render salutes to her in passing or refused to stand in a subordinate’s place in 
ranks is evidence of a hostile work environment.  She stated that the CWO2 chose to flex her 
power by subjecting the applicant to offensive conditions due to the fact she was supervisor.  
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  a  hostile  work  environment  exists  when  an  employee 
experiences  workplace  harassment  and  fears  going  to  work  because  of  the  offensive, 
intimidating, or oppressive atmosphere generated by the harasser.  The applicant stated that she 
suffered disparate treatment at the hands of her supervisor, as she was the only junior officer in 
that division.  The applicant disagreed with the advisory opinion’s statement that since all junior 
officers were treated badly there was no hostile environment.  In this regard, the applicant stated 
that the bad treatment of all junior officer shows that there was a hostile work environment.  The 
applicant  noted  that  the  junior  officer  with  whom  she  switched  places  also  complained  about 
being treated poorly in the planning division.  The applicant stated that she did not bring this up 
with the command out of fear it would make her situation worse.   
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  she  was  passed  over  twice  for  LT  due  to  the  low  mark  she 
received for compromising a non-standard test.  She stated that the low mark she received for a 
minor infraction was not warranted.  The applicant stated that the Personnel Manual charges the 
CO with ensuring that members receive accurate, fair, and objective evaluations.  The applicant 
stated that she was never afforded a fair and objective evaluation under her supervisor for the 
disputed OER.   
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant's 

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

1.  The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of title 10 

of the United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 

2.   The applicant was an enlisted Coast Guard member who was accepted into the officer 
candidate  program.    Upon  completion  of  that  training,  the  applicant  was  commissioned  as  an 
ensign  and  her  first  tour  was  at  Coast  Guard  Group  San  Francisco  where  she  received  the 
disputed  OER,  her  first  as  an  officer.    She  was  assigned  the  job  of  weapons  officer  at  this 
command, and a CWO2 served as her supervisor.  The applicant has alleged that the disputed 
OER should be removed from her record because her supervisor was an officer of a lower grade, 
because her start as a newly commissioned officer was unrealistic, because it was impossible for 

her to receive a fair evaluation due the unit’s impropriety, indiscretion, and partiality, because she 
was  unfairly  persecuted  for  allegedly  compromising  a  non-Coast  Guard  test,  because  she  was 
subjected to a hostile work climate/atmosphere throughout her tour, and because she was never 
allowed an opportunity to recover from her first OER.     

 
3.   Article  2.a.1.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  ensigns  are  senior  to  all  warrant 
officers of all grades (CWO2-CWO4).    A CWO2 was the applicant’s supervisor for the disputed 
OER, which was not illegal, because Article 10.A.2.d.of the Personnel Manual states that “the 
supervisor 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.”  
Although not illegal, it is very unusual for an officer of lower rank to be assigned as the rating 
chain  supervisor  for  an  officer  who  holds  a  higher  rank.    Few,  if  any  cases  reviewed  by  the 
Board, have involved a supervisor of lower grade evaluating an officer of higher grade.   The 
uniqueness  of  such  a  situation  is  corroborated  by  the  three  officers  who  wrote  statements  on 
behalf of the applicant.  Each one stated that in their view it was inappropriate for the CWO2 to 
be  the  supervisor  of  the  higher  ranked  ensign.      However,  the  Personnel  Manual  permits  an 
officer  of  lower  grade  to  be  designated  as  the  supervisor  of  an  officer  in  a  higher  grade  in 
“appropriate  situations.”    There  is  no  evidence  before  the  Board  that  the  CWO2  was  not 
designated as the applicant’s supervisor. Nor is there any evidence explaining the “appropriate 
situation” that led the CO to assign the CWO2 as the rating chain supervisor for the applicant 
and  the  Personnel  Manual  does  not  require  such  an  explanation.    In  light  of  this  finding,  the 
Board cannot say that the Coast Guard committed a legal error in assigning the CWO2 as the 
applicant’s rating chain supervisor.   
 

4.  The question for the Board is not whether it was legal to assign the CWO2 as the 
applicant’s  supervisor,  but  whether  the  applicant  suffered  under  an  abusive  supervisor  that 
interfered  with  her  ability  to  perform  better  than  described  in  the  disputed  OER.     The  Coast 
Guard  phrased  the  applicant’s  contention  as  one  in  which  she  disagreed  with  the  marks  and 
comments of the disputed OER.  However, the applicant’s contention is more that she was placed 
in a situation in which she was doomed to fail because of a hostile work environment created in 
part by the command’s decision to make her subordinate to an officer of lower grade who took 
every opportunity to embarrass or belittle the applicant.  The applicant contended that the CWO2 
acted in an abusive and disrespectful manner toward her.  

 
5.  Although the applicant is not alleging discrimination due to race, sex, gender, or age, 
she is alleging that the environment under which she was expected to perform was a hostile one.  
While  the  case  law  on  the  existence  of  a  hostile  work  environment  has  allegations  of 
discrimination  by  a  member  of  a  protected  class  as  a  necessary  component,  such  law  is  still 
instructive on some of the other elements that are necessary to prove a hostile work environment.  
For this case, the Board will focus on those other elements.   In Novotny v. Reed Elsevier, et al., 
No. C-3-05-424, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 66608, at * 59 (Sept. 10, 2007), affirmed 2008 U.S. App. 
LEXIS 18777 (6th Cir. 2008) the court stated that in determining the existence of a hostile work 
environment it must look at the frequency of the conduct, the severity of the conduct, whether 
the conduct is physically threatening or humiliating or whether it was a mere offensive utterance, 
and  whether  the  conduct  unreasonably  interferes  with  an  employee’s  work  performance.    See 
also Lewis et al. v. McDade, 54 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (GA D.C. 1999).   In addition, Chapter 3.1.a. of 

the  Coast  Guard  Equal  Opportunity  Manual  states  that  every  member  of  Team  Coast  Guard 
deserves  to  be  treated  with  honor,  dignity  and  respect  and  to  work  in  an  environment  free  of 
discrimination or harassment.   

 
6.   The evidence submitted by the applicant is not specific as to the severity or frequency 
of the alleged abusive conduct.  In this regard, the Board is not aware of what the CWO2 actually 
said or did, and how often such action occurred, i.e. whether such conduct occurred several times 
a day, weekly, etc.    In this regard, LT G stated that the CWO2 treated ensigns, including the 
applicant, who were assigned to her badly, and that the CWO2 criticized the applicant in front of 
enlisted members or at every opportunity.  LT L stated that the CWO2 “often looked for reasons 
to gossip about her ‘wayward ensign’ and looked forward to the opportunity to write her OER as 
her supervisor  . . . and took every opportunity to belittle [the applicant] or set her up for failure 
by withholding information that would be important in carrying out her job.”  However neither 
stated  what  the  CWO2  actually  stated  in  front  of  enlisted  members  or  what  information  was 
actually withheld from the applicant.  LT G stated that the environment at the unit was hostile to 
junior officers and LT L stated that the unit was hostile to female junior officers.  However, they 
never detail the specifics of the “bad” treatment that would allow this Board to make a finding of 
a  hostile  or  abusive  environment  under  which  the  applicant  was  unreasonably  expected  to 
perform.   

 
7.  In addition, LT G stated that the CWO2 joked about her supervision of junior officers.  
However,  LT  G  does  not  state  what  the  jokes  were  or  how  often  the  CWO2  made  them.   
Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that  any of the alleged actions by the CWO2 were 
physically  threatening  or  humiliating.    Since  no  evidence  was  presented  on  what  the  CWO2 
actually stated in her criticism of the applicant in front of enlisted members or what she stated in 
her jokes, the Board cannot make a determination whether such open criticism or jokes was so 
humiliating  that  it  unreasonably  interfered  with  the  applicant’s  performance.    The  CWO2’s 
failure to render a salute to the applicant and her behavior in taking the senior position in ranks 
may  have  been  somewhat  embarrassing  to  the  applicant;  but  the  Board  does  not  find  it  so 
humiliating as to unreasonably interfere with the applicant’s ability to do her job.  In making this 
finding, the Board in no way excuses the behavior of the CWO2 or the command for not doing a 
better job in managing this situation.  However, the evidence presented by the applicant does not 
persuade the Board that the attitude or actions by the CWO2 or the command were so abusive 
that they interfered with the applicant’s ability to perform her duties. 

 
 
8.     The  real  problem  with  the  applicant’s  case  is  that  she  has  not  established  that  the 
marks and comments in the disputed OER are erroneous or that she performed better than that 
described in the OER.    For instance, the applicant disagrees with the comments in the OER that 
she compromised an RFO examination, but she presents only her opinion that what she did was a 
minor issue since the test was not an end-of-course test, and therefore her OER should not have 
been  downgraded  because  it.    The  applicant  would  need  to  get  statements  from  others  with 
knowledge of the situation and experience with such testing to corroborate her contention that 
her sharing the points and authorities for the test with the crew was not a significant issue and 
was overblown in the OER.  Further, the applicant needed to offer evidence that certain of the 
marks and comments in the disputed OER are inaccurate or unjust because she performed better 
than described or because the environment at the unit made it impossible for her to perform at a 

higher  level.      As  it  stands,  the  evidence  is  insufficient  to  prove  that  the  evaluation  of  her 
performance in the disputed OER is inaccurate or unjust.   

 
9.    Even  if  the  Board  were  to  find  that  the  disputed  OER  is  erroneous  or  unjust  and 
remove it from the applicant’s record, the Board would not remove her failures of selection for 
promotion to LT.    In reaching a determination on whether an applicant’s failures of selection 
should be removed if corrective action is taken, the Board is required to answer two questions:  
“First, was [the applicant’s] record prejudiced by the errors in the sense that the record appears 
worse than it would in the absence of the errors?  Second, even if there was some such prejudice, 
is  it  unlikely  that  [the  applicant]  would  have  been  promoted  in  any  event?”  Engels  v.  United 
States, 678 F.2d 173, 176 (Ct. Cl. 1982).   

 
 
 
 

 
10.  If the applicant had established the disputed OER to be in error, it might have caused 
her record to appear slightly worse before the selection board.  In this regard the Board notes that 
her comparison scale mark on this OER was the lowest of all of such marks on her other OERs.  
However on the second question, the Board finds that even if there had been slight prejudice to 
the applicant’s record by  the disputed OER before the selection boards, it is unlikely that the 
applicant would have been promoted to LT in any event.  While the comparison scale mark on 
the disputed OER was the lowest of all her OERs, the Board notes it was her very first OER as 
an officer/ensign from which she recovered on her second ensign OER.  On her second ensign 
OER she gained a recommendation for promotion with her peers and a placement in the fourth 
block on the comparison scale.   However, on her next two OERs in the grade of LTJG, she lost 
her  recommendation  for  promotion.      On  the  first  LTJG  OER  she  was  not  recommended  for 
promotion  in  block  10.    The  reporting  officer  wrote  on  that  OER  that  the  applicant  was  not 
recommended for promotion “due to repeated lapses in judgment and organizational skills.”  The 
reporting officer noted that she had not progressed as would be expected after nearly a full tour at 
that unit.”  In her second LTJG OER, which was her fourth OER overall, the reporting officer 
wrote  in  block  10  “Upon  successful  completion  of  (up  coming)  staff  assignment,  this  officer 
could be promoted with peers.”   With these recommendations against her promotion to LT, it 
was  unlikely  that  the  applicant  would  have  been  promoted  to  that  grade  in  any  event  with  or 
without the disputed OER in her record.   Moreover, no evidence has been offered from senior 
officers  with  selection  board  experience  that  having  a  supervisor  of  lower  grade  than  the 
reported-on officer was prejudicial before a selection board.    
 
 
Guard committed an error or injustice in the case.   
 
 
 
 

11.  The applicant has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Coast 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

The application of XXXXXXXXXXXXX USCG, for correction of her military record is 

ORDER 

 
 

 

denied. 
 

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Randall J. Kaplan 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 

 

 
 Ryan J. Wedlund