DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2007-140 
 
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 June 8, 
2007, upon receipt of the application, and subsequently prepared 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  March  13,  2008,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 
 
 The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  military  record  by  removing  an  officer 
evaluation report (OER) for the period from October 1, 2001 to June 15, 2002 (disputed OER), 
from  his  record  and  by  replacing  it  with  a  report  prepared  for  continuity  purposes  only.   The 
applicant  further  requested  that,  if  he  is  selected  for  promotion  by  the  2007  lieutenant 
commander (LCDR) selection board (which he was), his promotion to that grade be backdated to 
June 2006, with back pay and allowances. 
 
The Disputed OER  
 
 
The OER covers a period when the applicant was assigned as a Coast Guard Command 
Center Duty Officer.  The evaluated performance on the disputed OER consists of three parts:  
the supervisor’s portion, the reporting officer’s portion, and the reviewing officer’s portion.  In 
this case, the supervisor and reporting officer were the same person, which is permissible under 
the Coast Guard Personnel Manual.  Under performance of duties in the supervisor’s portion of 
the  OER,  the  applicant  received  marks  of  5  for  planning  and  preparedness,  using  resources, 
results/effectiveness, and professional competence.1  He received a mark of 4 in adaptability.  In 
the comments block the reporting officer wrote: 

                                                 
1   Marks on an OER form are from a low of 1 to a high of 7.  A 4 is considered to be an average mark.  Article 
10.A.4.c.4.g. of the Personnel Manual. 

 
Professionally executed all Presidential Decision Direct 27 (PD-27) conferences 
to  ensure  interagency  concurrence;  positive  coordination  between  CG,  DOS, 
Mexican and Guatemalan governments on highly sensitive and intricate migrant 
case  resulted  in  return  of  250  Ecuadorian  migrants.    Coordinated  rescue  on 
downed National Guard pilot near Atlantic City, rescuing pilot and strengthening 
interagency  ties.    Submitted  critical  passdown  information  to  ameliorate  watch 
transition.    Proper  Management  of  highly  visible  M/V  MACANUDO  force 
majure  case  enable  senior  leaders  to  make  timely  and  informed  decisions.  
Personally  documented  over  100  reports  of  oil,  chemical,  hazardous  material 
spills  and  terrorists  incidents  resulting  in  hundreds  of  notifications  to  Federal, 
Stated, and local agencies that support the National Response Plan and Homeland 
Security.    Made  extensive  use  of  technological  and  local  resources,  efficiently 
utilizing CG districts to obtain current case information.  Had difficulty adapting 
and  incorporating  changing  watchstanding  duties/policies.    Efficiently  handled 
several 
imminent  cases,  precise  execution  benefited 
dependents.  Assisted in processing of over 2000 migrant interdictions, thousands 
of pounds of contraband, five marine safety cases, and several in-depth suspicious 
activity/terrorism threats to the maritime arena.     

time  critical  death 

In the leadership skills section of the OER, the reporting officer gave the applicant a mark 
of 7 in looking out for others, a mark of 6 in workplace climate, and marks of 5 in developing 
others, directing others, teamwork, and evaluations.   In support of the marks in this section, the 
supervisor wrote: 

 
As  CG  Command  Center  Duty  Officer  (CCDO),  direct  activities  of  divers  11 
member watch team.  Through maturation process and assistance of E-8 Assistant 
Duty  Officer (ADO), watch team adequately processed  a myriad of operational 
cases.  Developed good working rapport with watch section.  Effectively directed 
assigned tasks to District Command Centers to obtain information providing clear 
input . . . accurate and timely briefings to senior officials.  Demonstrated genuine 
concern  for  military  family  while  quickly  and  efficiently  processing  expedited 
review  of  CG  member;  diplomatically  handled  details  of  the  case.    Own  OER 
submission  submitted  on  time  and  extensively  documented.    Volunteered  and 

In the communication skills section of the OER, the reporting officer gave the applicant 
marks of 5 in speaking and listening and in writing.  In support of these marks, the supervisor 
wrote: 

 
Actively contributed to the precise and effective summaries of operational events 
through  case  log  documentation  and  weekly  operational  highlights.   Accurately 
documented  6  marine  casualties 
through  clear,  concise 
SECALERTS.    Delivered  5  formal  briefings  for  C-C,  G-M  and  other  senior 
officials.    Wrote  43  FOIA  request  response  letters,  accurately  portraying  the 
NRS’s  positions  on  each.    Takes  appropriate  time  to  prepare  for  oral  briefs.  
Produced accurate NRC reports and verbally passed report information to FOSCs.   

for  SECDOT 

 

 

assisted  fellow  officer  in  cleaning  out  house  after  it  was  damaged  by  fire.  
Volunteered  in  the  clean  up  efforts  in  the  aftermath  of  local  tornado  damage.  
Extensively worked with a petty officer in submitting package of OCS.  Worked 
closely with FBI liaison officer to ensure that the NRC fully supported the FBI’s 
reporting requirements in the wake of the terrorist attacks.  Anticipating multiple 
FOIA  requests  in  the  wake  of  Sept.  11th,  developed  system  for  all  NRC 
watchstanders  to  compile  a  list  of  all  error  related  calls    .  .  .  easier  cross-
referencing for specific FOIA requests.   

 
 
The  reporting  officer  wrote  in  block  7  of  the  OER  that  the  applicant  demonstrated 
excellent initiative by beginning his pursuit of a Master’s Degree with the Naval War College to 
enhance his education in conjunction with achieving both personal and professional skills. The 
reporting  officer  stated  that  the  applicant  was  an  intelligent  officer  who  absorbs  new 
practices/procedures  quickly.    The  reporting  officer  wrote  that  “[the  applicant]  does  need  to 
improve his tact . . .  and how he portrays himself to senior officers.”  
 

In the personal and professional qualities section of the OER, the reporting officer gave 
the applicant a mark of 6 in health and well being, marks of 5 in initiative, responsibility, and 
professional  presence,  and  a  mark  of  4  in  judgment.    In  support  of  the  marks,  the  reporting 
officer wrote the following: 

 
Adequately handled potential terrorists threats, promptly recognizing implications 
upon  U.S.  and  correctly  involved  other  agencies  .  .  .  quick  reaction  ensured 
required law enforcement agencies began the necessary threat assessment process.  
Exercise adequate judgment in analyzing complex situations and in making well 
thought out decisions during stressful situations.  Needs to improve in thinking 
outside  the  box  and  not  just  following  written  guidelines  that  minimally  cover 
required response actions.  Routinely processed dozens of law enforcement in the 
interdiction of over 2000 illegal migrants and over 80,000 pounds of contraband.  
Maintains trim, smart appearance with friendly demeanor. Projected positive CG 
image while entertaining senior foreign officials during Command Center tours.  
Exercises regularly and encourages others to participate.  Grad school enrollment 
enhanced  professional  capabilities  in  warfare.    Successfully  prosecuted  high 
profile request from CDC for Strike Team members to assist with anthrax cleanup 
of  US  Senate  building.   Worked  with  G-OPL  to  ensure  several  Cuban  Flotillas 
were properly monitored and briefed at the national level.   

 
 
On the comparison scale in block 9 where the reporting officer compared the applicant 
with  all  other  LTs  he  has  known  throughout  his  career,  he  marked  the  applicant  in  the  center 
block as “one of the many competent professionals who form the majority of this grade,” which 
is the equivalent of mark of 4 on a scale of 1 to a high of 7.   
 
 
In  block  10,  the  reporting  officer  noted  that  the  applicant  had  been  given  a  new 
assignment  in  the  Plans  and  Exercises  Division  in  the  Office  of  Command,  Control  and 
Preparedness. He recommended the applicant for promotion and indicated that he was a prime 
candidate for post-graduate school in a field of his choosing. 

 The  reviewer  authenticated  the  OER  without  comment.    According  to  the  military 

record, the applicant did not submit a reply to the disputed OER. 
 
Applicant’s Previous and Subsequent OERs 
 
Applicant’s previous OER 
 
 
The  applicant’s  previous  OER  to  the  one  in  question  consisted  of  a  different 
supervisor/reporting officer, but the same reviewer.  This OER covered the period from February 
1, 2001 to September 30, 2001, and was prepared upon detachment of the reporting officer.  
 

 In the performance of duties section, the applicant was given marks of 5 in planning and 
resources, 

 

In the communications section of the previous OER, the applicant received a mark of 4 in 

preparedness  and  professional  competence  and  marks  of  4 
in  using 
results/effectiveness, and adaptability.  The comments in the section were positive.   
 
 
speaking and listening and a mark of 5 in writing, with positive comments. 
 
 
In the leadership skills section of the previous OER, the applicant received marks of 5 in 
looking  out  for  others  and  developing  others  and  marks  of  4  in  directing  others,  teamwork, 
workplace climate, and evaluations.  The comments were complimentary. 
 
 
In  the  personal  and  professional  qualities  of  the  previous  OER,  the  applicant  received 
marks of 5 in initiative and health and well being and marks of 4 in judgment, responsibility, and 
professional presence.  The comments were positive. 
 
 
In  section  9  of  the  previous  OER,  the  applicant  was  rated  as  a  “good  performer;  give 
tough, challenging assignments.”  This rating is in the fourth block of seven on the comparison 
scale where the reporting officer compares the reported-on officer with others of the same grade 
whom he has known in his career.   This reporting officer stated that the applicant had excelled in 
his duties as command center duty officer and recommended him for promotion with his peers.   
 
Applicant’s Subsequent OER 
 
 
The  applicant’s  subsequent  OER  evaluated  his  performance  as  a  contingency 
preparedness planner.  The OER covers a period from June 15, 2002, to June 27, 2003, and it is 
marked as a detachment of officer OER.   
 
 
In the performance of duties section of this OER the applicant received marks of 5 in 
planning and preparedness, using resources, results/effectiveness, adaptability and professional 
competence. The comments were positive.   
 
 
and listening and writing, with positive comments. 
 

In the communications section of this OER, the applicant received marks of 5 in speaking 

 
In the leadership skills section of the OER, the applicant received marks of 6 in looking 
out for others category and workplace climate,  and marks of 5 in developing others, directing 
others, teamwork, and evaluations.  The comments for this section were complimentary. 
 
 
In the personal and professional qualities section of this OER, the applicant received a 
mark of 6 in health and well-being, and marks of 5 in initiative, judgment, responsibility, and 
professional presence.  The comments were positive. 
 
 
In block 9 on the comparison scale, the applicant was rated as a “good performer; give 
tough, challenging” assignments.”  This rating is in the fourth block of seven on the comparison 
scale where the reporting officer compares the reported-on officer with others of the same grade 
whom he has known in his career. 
 
 
intelligence, and for consideration for post graduate study.   
 

In  block  10,  the  applicant  was  recommended  for  promotion,  for  staff  assignments  in 

  

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 

The  applicant  alleged  that  the  comments  and  marks  on  the  disputed  OER  reflect  an 
unfair,  inaccurate,  and  subjective  evaluation.    The  applicant  stated  that  he  was  scheduled  to 
transfer to an assignment in Baltimore in March 2002 that did not materialize.  He stated that he 
had  already  bought  a  house  in  that  area  when  he  learned  that  he  would  not  be  getting  the 
Baltimore  assignment.    He  then  requested  to  remain  in  his  current  assignment  for  a  year.    In 
order to do so, he had to obtain the approval of his supervisor, who was also the reporting officer 
for his rating chain.  He requested the reporting officer’s permission to remain in his then current 
assignment, to which the supervisor replied “you are one of my best duty officers, of course we 
would love to have you extend for a year.” 
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  approximately  three  weeks  after  his  conversation  with  the 
reporting  officer  about  extending,  the  applicant’s  wife  saw  the  reporting  officer  with  a  young 
blonde woman during lunch.  According to the applicant, his wife stated that the reporting officer 
was holding hands with the woman as they entered the restaurant.  The applicant stated that his 
wife went over to the reporting officer’s table to say hello.  The applicant stated that his wife 
knew the reporting officer’s family and that the woman with the reporting officer was not his 
wife.   
 
The applicant stated that on that same day, the reporting officer told him that he had seen 
 
the applicant’s wife while he was having lunch with a male named KS.  The applicant stated that 
when  his  wife  phoned  him  that  day  on  a  recorded  line  that  was  accessible  by  the  reporting 
officer, he asked her if she said hello to KS who had lunch with the reporting officer.  He stated 
that his wife replied that she saw the reporting officer with a blonde woman and not KS.  The 
applicant  stated  that  the  next  day,  he  saw  KS  and  asked  him  if  he  had  had  lunch  with  the 
reporting  officer  the  previous  day,  to  which  KS  replied  that  he  did  not  have  lunch  with  the 
reporting officer.  The applicant attached a statement from his wife corroborating his allegations 
with respect to luncheon event.   
 

 
The applicant alleged that approximately one week after that lunch, the reporting officer 
began  to  treat  him  very  differently.    He  claimed  that  without  any  provocation,  the  reporting 
officer began publicly and privately yelling at him and repeatedly stating that the applicant was 
not  able  to  do  anything  correctly.    The  applicant  claimed  that  the  reporting  officer’s  abusive 
treatment  toward  him  continued  during  the  remainder  of  the  period  covered  by  the  disputed 
OER. 
 

The  applicant  alleged  the  disputed  OER  is  inaccurate  and  the  product  of  the  reporting 
officer’s fear that his relationship with the blonde would be exposed.   The applicant stated that 
he  was  a  superior  performer  during  the  period  covered  by  the  disputed  OER  and  that  the 
numerical marks are low and do not reflect his performance, except for the mark of 7 in block 5a 
–  looking  out  for  others.    He  argued  that  the  comments  are  generic  and  lack  the  emphasis 
warranted by his superb performance during the rating period.  He alleged that since the OER is 
tainted, it is necessary to remove the entire OER from his record.  
 

The applicant stated that many of the comments that he proposed in his OER input were 
not included in the disputed OER, particularly those related to his efforts following the events of 
September  11.      In  this  regard,  he  stated  that  he  developed  a  plan  to  have  fishing  boats  from 
Sheepshead Bay join the Auxiliary to help with the safety zone around New York Harbor.  He 
stated that on September 13, 2001, he went to New York and arranged for five fishing vessels to 
temporarily join the auxiliary in order to augment the security zone around New York City.  He 
stated that he volunteered several days of his personal time to help with the clean up at the World 
Trade  Center  site  and  to  hand  out  food  on  Chelsea  pier  in  Manhattan.        According  to  the 
applicant, none of these accomplishments were included in the disputed OER.   

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  the  reporting  officer’s  assignment  as  Aide  to  the  Vice 
Commandant  was  shortened  and  that  his  orders  to  a  position  as  Group  Commander  were 
cancelled because of the punitive letter of reprimand the reporting officer received for engaging 
in an adulterous relationship.  The applicant stated that the reporting officer’s history of infidelity 
was common knowledge among the staff at Coast Guard Headquarters, as well as his propensity 
to exact retribution on anyone who witnessed or knew of his inappropriate behavior and stood 
against it. In this regard, the applicant stated that a colleague, CDR D, let the reporting officer 
know  that  their  relationship  would  be  strictly  professional  when  the  reporting  officer  began 
flirting with her.  The applicant submitted a statement from CDR D.  In that statement, CDR D 
stated that when the reporting officer realized that she was aware of his behavior, the reporting 
officer exacted revenge on her through harsh treatment and a substandard OER.   
 

As stated above, the applicant alleged that after his wife saw the reporting officer having 
lunch with a woman not his wife, the reporting officer began treating the applicant in an unfair 
and  irrational  manner.    The  applicant  stated  that  on  several  occasions  the  reporting  officer 
referred to him as a “stupid A—h---“  and directed other derogatory comments toward him in 
public.   The  applicant  stated  that  the  reporting  officer  never  gave  him  a  reason  for  his  anger 
toward him, although he asked him about it; the reporting officer never documented any alleged 
mistakes or performance issues.   

 

The  applicant  alleged  that  there  was  no  way  in  which  he  could  please  the  reporting 
officer.   According  to  the  applicant,  whether  he  accomplished  a  task  as  he  had  previously  or 
whether  he  did  so  in  a  new  way,  the  reporting  officer  would  scream  at  him  and  say  that  the 
applicant  should  have  known  what  the  reporting  officer  wanted.    The  applicant  claimed  that 
before his wife saw the reporting officer at lunch with the blonde woman, the reporting officer 
had praised the applicant for the same actions about which he then-currently found fault.   

 
The  applicant  stated  that  approximately  three  weeks  after  the  luncheon  incident,  the 
reporting officer relieved him of his watchstanding duties and made him an assistant duty officer 
even though he had performed without incident as a duty officer and he had trained other officers 
for the job.   The applicant stated that the reporting officer gave no reason for the decision to 
remove the applicant as a command center duty officer, except to say that “[the reporting officer] 
did not feel comfortable” with him, which the applicant attributed to the reporting officer’s guilty 
conscience.   

 
The applicant stated that four days after being removed from duty as a command duty 
officer, the reporting officer telephoned him at home and told him that he had been relieved of 
duty.    The  reporting  officer  further  stated  that  he  had  spoken  with  the  reviewer  and  that  the 
applicant would be transferred to another office within Headquarters, which the reporting officer 
described as a good thing because the applicant had just purchased a home and it would give him 
a “fresh start.”  The applicant claimed that the next day, the reviewer told him that he was being 
transferred due to a “personality conflict” with the reporting officer.   

 
The applicant stated that CDR D also experienced a pattern of unprofessional treatment at 
the hands of the reporting officer and had to dispute an allegedly inaccurate OER prepared by the 
reporting officer.  The applicant also stated that CDR D served with him during the reporting 
period and found him to be a “superior performer.”  The applicant stated that CDR D believes the 
disputed  OER  should  be  considered  a  retaliatory  report  based  on  her  observations  of  the 
reporting officer’s unprofessional behavior toward the applicant.  In support of these contentions, 
the applicant offered the following comments from CDR D’s sworn statement that he attached as 
an exhibit to his application: 
 

* 

* 

* 

Around this time, approximately June or July 2002 through his retirement, [the 
reporting  officer]  began  to  frequently  criticize  and  demean  me  in  front  of  the 
watch for various minor items, despite the fact that I was a fellow officer of equal 
rank  and  senior  lineal  number.    He  started  to  behave  the  same  ways  towards 
others, most notably [the applicant] who was probably criticized and belittled on a 
far more frequent basis than I was.   
 

In my opinion, the OER in question is inaccurate and deficient.  Furthermore, I 
believe  that  this  OER  was  given  in  retribution  as  part  of  a  pattern  that  [the 
reporting officer] demonstrated with several officers in the command center who 
exhibited leadership capabilities or independent good judgment in fulfilling their 
duties. 
 

* 

* 

* 

[The  reporting  officer]  would  throw  “temper  tantrums”  for  a  lack  of  a  better 
description toward a handful of watchstanders who were not his favorites.  [The 
reporting officer’s] ill behavior appeared to occur on a hair trigger, depending on 
his mood at the time.  [The reporting officer] would make up the rules as he went 
along, and if a member of the command violated those unknown rules, he would 
yell  and  scream  at  that  person  in  front  of  others.    I  had  worked  with  [the 
applicant]  for  two  years  prior  to  the  summer  of  2002  and  saw  nothing  in  his 
performance that supported the need for such treatment.  [The applicant] was a 
superior  performer  the  entire  time  I  worked  with  him.    Moreover,  the  public 
nature of these tirades was inexplicable. 
 

* 

* 

* 

 
[The reporting officer] would castigate [the applicant], me, and others in front of 
the National Response Office watch, consisting of contract civilians and E-4/E-5s 
as  well  as  in  front  of  the  newly  added  Intelligence  Watch  staffed  from  the 
Intelligence Coordination Center (ICC) consisting of mainly O-1s and O-2s. 
 

* 

* 

* 

 
Sometime in 2002, despite the fact that we were low on watchstanders and that 
[the  applicant]  was  an  experienced  watchstander  doing  an  outstanding  job,  [the 
reporting officer] informed me that we would all have to begin picking up extra 
watches  because  he  was  transferring  [the  applicant]  .  .  .    I  questioned  the 
desirability of doing this, but [the reporting officer] told me that “he had to go,” 
offering  no  cogent  explanation  for  the  timing  or  circumstances  of  the  transfer.  
Morale was at an all-time low.  [The applicant] mentioned that he had to accept 
this transfer and was given no choice.   

 
 
 
The applicant stated that LCDR H, a fellow officer assigned to another unit, swore that he 
was personally aware of the reporting officer’s propensity for getting personal retribution against 
officers under his supervision through inappropriate marks and comments in their OERs.  The 
applicant  quoted  the  following  from  LCDR  H’s  statement  about  the  situation  between  the 
applicant and the reporting officer: 
 

I know CDR D lobbied hard against [the reporting officer’s] plan to transfer [the 
applicant] from the CC.  I am unaware of why [the applicant] was transferred but 
I can say that during the two-plus years I dealt with him on fisheries PD-27s, I 
was always extremely  comfortable with his watchstanding abilities and  held an 
extra layer of comfort when I knew he was on watch.  He was, in my opinion, an 
excellent watchstander.  I know that CDR D felt the same way and attempted to 
intervene on [the applicant’s behalf].  She offered to stand watch with him and 
take any corrective action she felt necessary, she also offered to counsel him and 
try to evoke some sort of performance improvement (although she, too, felt his 

performance was excellent).  When CDR D informed me that [the applicant] had 
been  “sacked”  by  [the  reporting  officer],  I  was  taken  aback.    I  don’t  want  to 
second  guess  his  administrative  decision,  but  it  would  seem  to  me  that 
transferring an extremely competent watchstander at a time of critical personnel 
shortages was probably not a prudent decision.  The circumstances surrounding 
[the applicant’s] departure are purported to be based not on performance but on 
personal issues with [the reporting officer].  As I do not have personal knowledge 
of these issues,  I will not advance  conjecture.   My perception, however, is that 
[the  applicant]  was  “sacked”  not  because  of  any  professional  deficiencies,  but 
because [the reporting officer] had issues.   

The applicant also offered the following comments from Senior Chief T who had worked 

 
 
with the applicant and whose statement was attached as an exhibit to the applicant’s brief: 
 

In approximately the last six months of my tour, both [the applicant] and I started 
to notice a change in the actions of [the reporting officer].   I witnessed several 
occasions  where  after  calling  the  [reporting  officer]  as  we  were  required,  he 
would  either  become  irritated  at  our  call  or  call  back  and  speak  with  [the 
applicant]  unprofessionally  about  procedures  or  changes  that  neither  one  of  us 
was aware of.   
 

* 

* 

* 

 
The final incident that occurred was at the beginning of one of our watches.  As I 
came  in  to  relieve  the  watch,  [the  applicant]  informed  me  that  [the  reporting 
officer] wanted to see us in his office.  Thinking that there was some new watch 
procedure to be passed, we both went in and were asked to close the door.  At this 
point the [reporting officer] proceeded to immediately start yelling at both of us 
about how we ran our watch, including reading excerpts from a blank evaluation 
form  and  stating  some  of  these  were  borderline  UCMJ  issues.    We  were  both 
totally surprised and caught off guard by this since it was the first indication that 
there was any problem of any kind with our watch.  After a few minutes, I was 
dismissed from the office, but after coming into the watch space I could still hear 
[the reporting officer] yelling at the [applicant] letting me know that everyone in 
the watch space could hear as well. 
 

* 

* 

* 

 
I  could  not  remember  being  witness  to  such  a  poor  display  of  professionalism 
from a LCDR . . .   

 

The applicant also submitted a statement from JN who served with the applicant in 2001 
and  2002.    He  stated  that  after  qualifying  for  CDO  he  was  assigned  to  the  applicant’s  duty 
section.  He stated that he found the applicant to be a competent, knowledgeable and pleasant 
officer,  and  that  he  enjoyed  working  in  his  duty  section.    He  stated  that  during  the  period  in 
question,  he  observed  several  exchanges  between  the  reporting  officer  and  the  applicant.    He 

state that the reporting officer was frequently loud, sarcastic, and gesturing wildly when talking 
to  the  applicant  and  during  a  number  of  all  hand  meetings,  the  reporting  officer  publicly 
reprimanded the applicant.  In a related comment, JN stated that on at least two other occasions 
the  reporting  officer  sent  an  all  hands  email  that  specifically  “disciplined”  the  applicant.    JN 
stated that on a daily basis he observed the reporting officer utilize intimidation, sarcasm, and 
public humiliation as leadership tools.  He stated that he found the leadership styles at the unit so 
abhorrent that he submitted his retirement letter and left active duty.   

 
The  applicant  stated  that  his  reporting  officer’s  daily  leadership  involved  intimidation, 
sarcasm, and public humiliation.  The applicant claimed that he was inappropriately reprimanded 
by the reporting officer at many all hands meetings. He argued that the reporting officer was able 
to write the inaccurate disputed OER because he was both the supervisor and reporting officer.  
The applicant stated that while this practice was not prohibited, the check-and-balance system 
intended  by  maintaining  a  separate  multi  level  rating  chain  was  absent,  which  resulted  in  the 
reporting officer’s unchallenged and personally biased evaluation of the applicant.    
 
 
The applicant argued that the reporting officer wrote a prejudicial and inaccurate OER, 
relieved the applicant of his duties, and transferred him without any documented or expressed 
reason.  The applicant further argued that he was never given any performance recommendations 
for improvement or counseling of any kind.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On October 25, 2007, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 
an  advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  deny  the  applicant’s  request.      He  further 
adopted  the  facts  and  analysis  provided  by  Commander  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command 
(CGPC) and asked the Board to accept them as the Coast Guard’s advisory opinion.   
 
 
CGPC stated that based on the record, the rating chain carried out its duties in accordance 
with  Chapter  10  of  the  Personnel  Manual  and  that  the  applicant  has  presented  insufficient 
evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity.  CGPC stated that the applicant’s case is 
built mainly on speculation and conjecture.  According to CGPC, the marks on the disputed OER 
are well supported by the comments.  In addition, CGPC stated that the rating chain refuted the 
applicant’s  allegations  that  the  disputed  OER  is  inaccurate  and  motivated  by  retribution  in 
detailed and objective declarations.  CGPC stated that the rating chain was in the best position to 
observe the applicant’s performance and provide a fair, accurate, and objective OER. 
 
 
reporting officer and reviewer.   
 
 
1.   The  reporting  officer  stated  that  the  OER  is  an  accurate  account  of  the  applicant’s 
performance  for  the  period  under  review.    He  stated  that  during  the  reporting  period,  and 
previously  by  his  predecessor,  the  applicant  was  counseled  for  not  adopting  to  the  changing 
watchstanding practices in light of the new post September 11 environment.  He stated that the 
applicant had difficulty adapting to the changes that he did not agree with and was counseled 
accordingly.  The reporting officer noted that the disputed OER is an above average OER with 

The  Coast  Guard  obtained  declarations  under  penalty  of  perjury  from  the  supervisor/ 

just  the  two  4s  in  adaptability  and  judgment.    He  further  stated  that  when  comparing  the 
applicant’s performance to the standards for 4s on the OER form in adaptability and judgment, 
the 4s in these categories on the disputed OER are more than fair.   
 
 
The reporting officer stated that the reviewer, who was his supervisor, concurred in the 
disputed OER without comment.  He stated that the reviewer was briefed about every counseling 
session and concurred in the decision to remove the applicant from the watch and to transfer him 
to another section at Headquarters.   
 
 
The reporting officer admitted that he had received a letter of reprimand for violations of 
the Uniform Code of Military Justice, including having an adulterous relationship with another 
female officer.  He argued that the applicant’s attorney represented the other party involved in the 
actions  taken  against  him  by  the  Coast  Guard  and  is  biased  in  his  characterizations  of  the 
reporting officer’s character.  Therefore, he argued the attorney’s input should be discounted.   
 
 
The reporting officer stated that the individuals who provided statements for the applicant 
were sub-par performers, except for JN.  In this regard, he stated that CDR D and Senior Chief   
T had been counseled on their performance.  The reporting officer stated that because JN worked 
weekend shifts, he rarely had any contact with him. In addition, he stated that LCDR H worked 
in  another  branch  in  Headquarters  and  they  were  rarely  in  contact.   Therefore  he  argued  that 
LCDR H’s statement that the reporting officer had a propensity for taking personal retribution 
against officers under his supervision through inappropriate marks and comments in the OERs 
could only have been obtained through second or third party information.  He also denied the 
accuracy of LCDR H’s comment.  The reporting officer further stated as follows: 
 

I  had  and  have  nothing  against  [the  applicant].    He  was  a  friendly,  outgoing 
individual who although tried his best, he did not always perform in the manner 
that  was  expected  for  an  officer  in  the  USCG  Command  Center.    He  was 
transferred  to  G-OPF-3  because  his  transfer  to  Baltimore  fell  through  and  his 
performance in the Command Center was not up to the level needed in the post-
9/11 environment, and NOT because of any perceived personality conflict.  If [the 
reviewer] stated that as the reason, it was never conveyed to me and I would find 
it  surprising  because  based  on  my  prior  assignment  under  [the  reviewer],  he 
would have transferred me instead of [the applicant] if there were a personality 
conflict.   
 
2.  The reviewer stated that he stands by the comments and marks in the disputed OER.  
 
He  stated  that  during  the  time  covered  by  the  disputed  OER  he  was  the  Chief  of  the  USCG 
Office  of  Command,  Control,  and  Preparedness  and  the  applicant  was  a  staff  officer  and 
command center duty officer within G-OPF.  The reviewer stated that during this period he had 
an opportunity to very closely observe the applicant while he carried out his duties as a command 
center watch officer.  He stated that the marks and comments in the adaptability and judgment 
categories on the disputed OER were somewhat gratuitous when compared against the standards 
but they gave the applicant the benefit of the doubt.   
 

 

[The applicant’s] mannerism was to make disrespectful facial expressions and in 
the  perception  of  observers  not  take  seriously  critiques  of  his  reports  and 
briefings.    He  seemed  to  treat  senior  officers  in  an  overly  casual  and 
unprofessional  manner.    When  this  bothered  me,  I  would  discuss  it  with  [the 
reporting  officer]  during  our  routine  debriefings.    [The  applicant’s]  mannerism 
and lack of professional demeanor were criticized by several of our senior officers 
and officials both within the Coast Guard and the Department of Transportation 
and resulted in a counseling session between RADM B and me in the Admiral’s 
office.  The Admiral was not pleased with [the applicant’s] morning briefing and 
directed  me  to  take  corrective  actions  to  increase  the  professionalism  of  our 
watchstanders.  I directed [the reporting officer] to take corrective action and he 
followed my instructions without attribution.   

 
 
The  reviewer  stated  that  he  and  the  reporting  officer  lost  confidence  in  the  applicant 
because of his lack of tact, unprofessional mannerisms, poor judgment and lack of follow-up and 
not because of his lack of knowledge.  He stated that it was his decision to transfer the applicant 
to  another  assignment,  although  the  reporting  officer  wanted  to  retain  the  applicant  in  the 
command  center.    The  reviewer  stated  the  applicant’s  transfer  was  for  the  good  of  the 
watchstanders and the applicant.  He stated that the applicant protested the transfer to him, but he 
directed the applicant to make the move.  
 
 
The reviewer stated that in 2002 the applicant did not mention anything to him about any 
interpersonal problems resulting from the reporting officer’s alleged involvement in speculative 
extramarital activities.  He further stated that although he interpreted the applicant’s inability to 
respond to the reporting officer’s leadership as a two-way problem, he still wanted the applicant 
to recognize that he was in a military chain of command situation and he had to obey orders.     
 

 
The  reviewer  stated  that  personnel  stresses  were  high  during  the  period  following 
September  11,  as  rapid  change  was  the  rule  rather  than  the  exception.    He  stated  that  the 
reporting officer needed a 125% effort from each watchstander.  Instead, the applicant provided 
the reporting officer with push-back that was supported by a tight cadre of his clique who took 
on  a  dissenting  role  of  the  “change  resistors.”    The  reviewer  stated  that  the  applicant  would 
routinely and openly question authority and was quick to give excuses to senior flag officers and 
other  officials  when  questioned  about  events  during  briefings.   The  reviewer  further  stated  as 
follows: 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On December 28, 2007, the Board received the applicant’s reply to the views of the Coast 
Guard.  In disagreeing with the views of the Coast Guard, the applicant stated that he did not file 
an  OER  reply  at  the  time  because  he  was  advised  not  do  so  by  many  superior  officers  upon 
seeking their advice.  In addition, he further argued that the reporting officer told him that the 
disputed OER was not a career killer. 
 
 
The applicant disagreed with the Coast Guard that he had submitted insufficient evidence 
to prove his allegations.  In this regard, he stated that he has supplied statements from multiple 

witnesses supporting his contention that the reporting officer treated him unprofessionally and 
inappropriately.  He restated his claim that the reporting officer’s attitude changed toward him 
after the applicant’s wife saw him at lunch with another woman.   
 
 
The  applicant  argued  that  the  reporting  officer’s  statement  supports  the  applicant’s 
argument  that  the  disputed  OER  is  not  accurate.    In  this  regard,  the  applicant  pointed  to  the 
reporting officer’s and reviewer’s statements that the applicant received marks in the adaptability 
and judgment categories that were higher than he deserved.  He argued that CGPC-opm failed in 
their  responsibility  to  ensure  accurate  and  fair  grading  because  the  comments  in  the  disputed 
OER  with  respect  to  his  adaptability  and  judgment  did  not  support  the  marks  of  4  that  he 
received, but rather supported marks of 2s or 3s.  The applicant argued that the scores of 4 in the 
subject  categories  demonstrate  a  higher  level  of  performance  than  that  referenced  in  the 
comments.   
 
The  applicant  again  contended  that  he  was  never  counseled  and  that  there  is  no 
 
documentation  that  any  counseling  occurred.    The  applicant  further  stated  that  the  reporting 
officer was incorrect when he stated that the applicant’s other OERs were average.  The applicant 
stated  that  his  other  OERs  were  above  average.    He  stated  that  the  disputed  OER  stands  out 
because it is not at the same level as his other above average OERs.   
 
 
The applicant stated that his witnesses’ statements verify that the reporting officer treated 
him wrong once his affair was exposed, which was not the same affair for which he was taken to 
admiral’s mast.  He argued that the reporting officer’s credibility has been damaged by his own 
admission and by his reputation that has been documented by the Coast Guard.   
 
The applicant stated that he retained his attorney because he is the best in the area of his 
 
expertise and that he is ethical and did not do anything improper.  The applicant concluded his 
reply with the following: 
 

The bottom line is that I was put into a situation I did not search for.  Ever since 
my  wife  saw  him  with  this  other  woman,  I  was  treated  differently  by  [the 
reporting officer], and only [the reporting officer].  I contend that I was treated in 
this manner by [the reporting officer] because I was a threat to his retirement.     
 
I  was  never  counseled  except  for  two  days  before  I  was  relieved  of  duty  and 
transferred, approximately one month after the incident between my wife and [the 
reporting officer].  I find it amazing that several months prior to the [the reporting 
officer]  called  me  “One  of  his  BEST  officers”  and  was  adamant  to  have  me 
extend a year in my current billet. 
 
The  OER  is  to  capture  a  “fair  and  accurate”  description  of  an  officer’s 
performance  and  is  certainly  not  meant  to  be  used  as  a  counseling  tool.    Since 
both [the reviewer] and [the reporting officer] state that the marks I received are 
in-fact  inaccurate,  regardless  in  which  way,  they  are  still  inaccurate.    The 
comments  themselves  do  not  correspond  to  the  marks  assigned  in  several 
categories.    

 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

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

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

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

of the United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 
 
2.  The applicant requested an oral hearing before the Board.  The Chair, acting pursuant 
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.    The  Board  begins  its  analysis  by  presuming  that  the  disputed  OER  is  correct  as  it 
appears in the record, and the applicant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the 
evidence that it is erroneous or unjust.2     
 

4.    The  disputed  OER  contains  two  marks  of  4  in  adaptability  and  judgment.    The 
remaining marks are 5s, 6s, and a single mark of 7.  Although many comments in the OER are 
positive, the Board notes that it also contains the following comments:    

 
Had difficulty adapting and incorporating changing watchstanding duties/policies.   

Through maturation process and assistance of E-8 Assistant Duty Officer (ADO), 
watch team adequately processed a myriad of operational cases. 

[The applicant] does need to improve his tact . . .  and how he portrays himself to 
senior officers. 

 

 

 

Needs  to  improve  in  thinking  outside  the  box  and  not  just  following  written 
guidelines that minimally cover required response actions.    
 
5.  The applicant alleged that the disputed OER is an inaccurate and unfair assessment of 
his performance for the period under review. He further alleged that the only accurate mark on 
the disputed OER is the 7 he received in block 5a.—looking out for others.  The applicant argued 
that the supervisor/reporting officer used the disputed OER to write an inaccurate assessment of 
his performance because the reporting officer was biased against him because the applicant knew 
about  the  reporting  officer’s  allegedly  intimate  lunch  with  a  woman  other  than  his  wife.  
According  to  the  applicant,  the  reporting  officer  considered  the  applicant’s  knowledge  of  the 
lunchtime  meeting  to  be  a  threat  to  the  reporting  officer’s  retirement,  particularly  since  the 
reporting officer had already been to mast and received a letter of reprimand for having an affair 
with a female officer.   The applicant also alleged that after the sighting by his wife, the reporting 
officer intensified his abusive treatment of the applicant by yelling at him in private and in public 

                                                 
2 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b). 

and  by  removing  him  from  duty  as  a  command  center  duty  officer  and  transferring  him  to 
another assignment within Headquarters.    
 

6.  The applicant has failed to persuade the Board that the disputed OER is an inaccurate 
assessment of his performance.  He offered the statement from CDR D, a fellow watchstander, 
that the applicant was a superior performer during the period under review.  LCDR H also stated 
that  the  applicant  was  an  excellent  watchstander.    Further,  JN,  who  was  a  member  of  the 
applicant’s duty section at one point, described the applicant as being knowledgeable, competent 
and a pleasant individual.  These three individuals offered their opinions about the applicant’s 
performance, but it is the members of the rating chain who are charged with the responsibility for 
evaluating the applicant’s performance.  In addition, the statements from CDR D, LCDR H, and 
JN,  are  not  more  credible  on  the  caliber  of  the  applicant’s  performance  than  those  from  the 
members of the rating chain.  For instance, CDR D was dissatisfied with her own OER from the 
reporting officer and attempted to have it removed from her record. Therefore, her view of the 
reporting  officer  could  be  somewhat  biased.    LCDR  H  was  not  a  member  of  the  Command 
Center Duty office and only saw the reporting officer occasionally.  In this regard, the reporting 
officer stated that LCDR H worked in another branch of Headquarters and he rarely had contact 
with him.  The  reporting officer  also stated that JN worked mainly on  weekends and that the 
reporting officer rarely had any contact with him.  Therefore, JN would have intermittent first- 
hand information about the interaction between the reporting officer and the applicant.  In light 
of the above, it appears to the Board that the reporting officer was in the best position to judge 
and evaluate the applicant’s performance, as it was his responsibility to supervise the applicant 
on  a  daily  basis.    In  addition,  the  reviewer  stated  that  he  was  able  to  observe  closely  the 
applicant’s performance. 

 
7.  Nothing in the statements from CDR D,  LCDR H, or JN proves that the applicant 
should have had higher marks on the disputed OER or that the OER comments are inaccurate.   
None  of  these  individuals  offered  specific  examples  of  any  accomplishments  by  the  applicant 
that should have been included in the OER that would have mandated higher performance marks.  
In  contrast,  the  rating  chain  provided  examples  of  the  applicant’s  performance  as  well  as 
criticism  of  it.    In  this  regard,  the  reporting  officer  criticized  the  applicant  for  not  adapting 
quickly enough to changing rules and policies after September 11, 2001, and for his lack of tact 
in dealing with senior officers.  Both the reporting officer and reviewer stood by the disputed 
OER as an accurate assessment of the applicant’s performance.   
 

8.  There is evidence in the record that the applicant was told by his wife that she saw the 
reporting officer allegedly having an intimate lunch with a woman other than his wife.  However, 
the  applicant  has  failed  to  prove  that  the  reporting  officer  used  the  disputed  OER  to  write  a 
biased  assessment  out  of  fear  that  the  applicant  would  expose  the  reporting  officer’s  alleged 
intimate lunch with another woman, and thereby, threaten his retirement, particularly since the 
reporting  officer  had  been  to  admiral’s  mast  for  an  earlier  infraction.    The  reporting  officer 
admitted that he had received a letter of reprimand at admiral’s mast, in part, for having an affair 
with another female officer.  While the reporting officer’s statement was silent on the applicant’s 
claim  that  his  wife  saw  the  reporting  officer  having  an  alleged  intimate  lunch  with  another 
woman,  the reporting officer did state that he held nothing, then or now, against the applicant. It 
appears to the Board that for the applicant to establish the reporting officer’s bias against him 

based on the applicant’s knowledge of the luncheon incident, the applicant needed to show that 
the reporting officer knew that the applicant suspected him of being involved in an adulterous 
relationship.  However,  there  is  no  persuasive  proof  that  the  applicant  ever  told  the  reporting 
officer, or anyone else in authority, that he suspected the reporting officer of committing adultery.  
In this regard, the applicant never stated that he informed the reporting officer that his wife told 
him that the reporting officer was at lunch with a woman other than his wife and not with KS, as 
the reporting officer allegedly had indicated to the applicant. The applicant speculates that the 
reporting  officer  could  have  learned  that  he  had  this  information  through  the  applicant’s 
telephone conversation with his wife on a recorded line.  However, speculation is insufficient to 
establish that the reporting officer knew that the applicant suspected him of adultery and wrote a 
biased performance evaluation because of it. 

 
9.  Additionally, the reviewer stated that the applicant did not mention any concerns to 
him about interpersonal problems between the applicant and reporting officer resulting from the 
reporting  officer’s  alleged  involvement  in  extramarital  activities.  Article10.A.2.g.2.c.  of  the 
Personnel Manual places responsibility on the reported-on officer to bring to the attention of the 
next senior in the chain of command the existence of a situation that may necessitate a change to 
the  rating  chain  during  the  reporting  period  or  within  30  days  after  the  end  of  the  reporting 
period.  The applicant makes his allegation against the reporting officer almost six years after the 
end  of  the  reporting  period,  which  causes  the  Board  to  question  why  he  would  raise  the 
allegations at the time. 

 
10.  The applicant has submitted some evidence that the reporting officer yelled at him 
privately and publicly, and he alleged that such treatment intensified after the luncheon incident.   
CDR D stated that the reporting officer yelled at the applicant as well as herself in private and in 
public. Senior Chief T stated that he heard the reporting officer yelling at the applicant through a 
closed  door.    Others  stated  that  the  reporting  officer  disciplined  the  applicant  at  all  hands 
meetings and through emails.   However, these individuals do not provide sufficient detail of the 
circumstances at that time, they do not state specifically what the reporting officer said to the 
applicant during these alleged inappropriate encounters, and they do not give a list of dates and 
times that such conduct occurred. Therefore, without specific details it is difficult for the Board 
to  judge  whether  the  reporting  officer’s  alleged  behavior  and  inappropriate  comments  were 
abusive and/or created a work environment that unjustly impacted the applicant’s performance 
for  the  period  under  review.    The  reporting  officer  and  reviewer  noted  that  the  period 
immediately  following  the  September  11  attacks  was  a  stressful  time  and  that  the  rules  and 
policies were constantly changing.  Therefore, it is conceivable that voices were raised at various 
times.    Even  so,  the  applicant  has  not  shown  that  the  evaluation  of  his  performance  in  the 
disputed OER is inaccurate, i.e. he has not provided real examples of accomplishments during 
the reporting period that were not included in the OER, etc.     

 
11.  The applicant blamed his transfer from the Command Center Duty Office to another 
assignment within Headquarters on the reporting officer’s alleged abusive treatment.  However, 
the reviewer makes clear in his statement that senior officers had problems with the applicant’s 
briefings and the manner in which he interacted with them.  The reporting officer stated that this 
dissatisfaction on the part of the senior officers  led to the reviewer being counseled by a flag 
officer after a briefing by the applicant.  The reviewer makes it clear that it was his decision to 

transfer the applicant, despite the reporting officer’s desire to keep the applicant in the Command 
Center  Duty  Office  assignment.    The  reviewer  stated  that  he  and  the  reporting  officer  loss 
confidence  in  the  applicant  because  of  his  “lack  of  tact,  unprofessional  mannerisms,  poor 
judgment  and  lack  of  follow-up  and  not  because  of  his  lack  of  knowledge.”    The  reviewer’s 
statement supports the reporting officer’s statement that he had no ill-will toward the applicant 
and  that  his  removal  from  duty  as  a  command  center  duty  officer  was  performance  based.  
Moreover, there is nothing in the disputed OER suggesting that the applicant was formally or 
informally relieved of duty for cause.  The OER is a detachment of officer OER that suggests 
that the applicant was moving on to a new periodic assignment, as most officers do.     

 
12.  The applicant argued that there was no documented counseling of any problems with 
his performance in his record and he denied that he was ever counseled until approximately 2 
days before being reassigned. There is no requirement that officers holding the rank of LT and 
above  receive  written  counseling.      The  Personnel  Manual  states  clearly  that  feedback  occurs 
whenever a subordinate receives any advice or observation from a rating chain official. It further 
provides that if such feedback is not clear, it is the reported-on officer’s responsibility to seek 
such clarification.   See 10.A.1.c.5. of the Personnel Manual.  Senior Chief D stated that he and 
the  applicant  were  often  called  by  the  reporting  officer  and  spoken  to  about  procedures  or 
changes that were allegedly unknown to them.  Despite the alleged tone of these conversations 
and  the  alleged  newness  of  the  policy  and  procedure  being  discussed,  such  feedback  is 
considered counseling under the Personnel Manual.       

 

  
13.  The applicant alleged that some of the comments that he proposed for inclusion in 
the OER were omitted, such as his plan to have fishing boats assist the Auxiliary with security 
around New York City after September 11 and the fact that he volunteered to help clean up the 
World Trade Center.  However, the applicant gives September 13, 2001, as the date for one these 
accomplishments  and  no  date  for  the  other.    The  Board  notes  the  beginning  period  for  the 
disputed  OER  is  October  1,  2001.    Therefore  if  the  accomplishments  occurred  before  the 
beginning  date  of  the  disputed  OER,  they  were  properly  not  reflected  in  the  disputed  OER.   
Article  10.A.4.c.7.b.of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  the  reporting  officer  shall  review  the 
reported-on officer’s performance and qualities observed and noted during the reporting period.   

 
14.  The applicant noted the fact that his supervisor and reporting officer were the same 
individual,  which  he  acknowledged  was  permissible  under  Article  10A.2.e.  of  the  Personnel 
Manual.  He suggested by having the reporting officer also serve as the supervisor, he was denied 
the checks and balances built into the officer evaluation system.  However, the reviewer provides 
the  check  and  balance  in  situations  where  the  supervisor  and  reporting  officer  are  the  same 
individual.   Article  10.A.2.f.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  state  that  the  reviewer  ensures  that  the 
OER  reflects  a  reasonable  consistent  picture  of  the  reported-on  officer’s  performance  and 
potential, adds additional comments as necessary; and ensures that the supervisor and reporting 
officer have adequately executed their responsibilities.  There is no suggestion in the record that 
the  reviewer  was  incapable  of  performing  his  OER  responsibilities.    By  signing  the  disputed 
OER  and  not  attaching  comments,  the  reviewer  expressed  his  agreement  with  the  reporting 
officer’s assessment of the applicant’s performance for the period under review.   

15.  The applicant also argued that the reporting officer’s and reviewer’s statements that 
the 4s in the adaptability and judgment categories were overly generous support his argument 
that the disputed OER is inaccurate.  The Board finds that even if the rating chain stated that it 
could have marked the applicant lower in these two categories, any such error was beneficial the 
applicant.  In this regard, the Board notes that a 4 is considered an average mark and anything 
below that is considered to be below average.  The suggestion of the rating chain at the this point 
that  they  gave  the  applicant  the  benefit  of  the  doubt  when  marking  him  in  adaptability  and 
judgment categories inured to the benefit of the applicant and is not proof that the disputed OER 
as a whole is inaccurate.    

 
16.  The applicant suggested that the mark of 7 in block 5a is the only correct mark on the 
disputed OER.  However, the applicant has put fourth very little evidence, if any, to show that all 
of his marks should have been of this caliber.   
 

17.   The applicant has failed to prove an error or injustice with respect to the disputed 
OER.  With no error or injustice having been established, there is no basis on which to consider 
the applicant’s request for removal of his calendar year 2006 failure of selection for promotion to 
LCDR.  Without a removal of the failure, there  is no basis on which to adjust the applicant’s 
LCDR date of rank once promoted to that grade.  The Board notes that the applicant was selected 
for promotion by the calendar  year 2007 LCDR selection board with the disputed OER in his 
record.   
 
18.  In light of the above, the applicant’s request for relief should be denied. 
 
 
 
 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXXXXX,  xxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Charles P. Kielkopf 

 

 

 
 Kenneth Walton 

 

 

 
 
 Eric J. Young 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

military record is denied.