DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2007-146 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

FINAL DECISION 

 
 
This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 425 of 
title 14 of the United States Code.  The Chair docketed the case on June 20, 2007, upon receipt of 
the completed application, and assigned it to staff member J. Andrews to prepare the decision for 
the Board as required by 33 C.F.R. § 52.61(c). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  March  27,  2008,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST  

 

 
 

 

The applicant, a retired Reserve officer, asked the Board to correct his officer evaluation 

report (OER) for the period June 1, 2002, to April 30, 2004, by  

• 

• 

• 

 
raising the low marks of 3 that he was assigned in the performance categories “Workplace 
Climate,” “Evaluations,” and “Judgment” to marks of 4 or higher; 1 
removing the following sentences from block 5, which support the low marks for “Work-
place  Climate”  and  “Evaluations”:    “However,  some  episodes  of  unwelcome  behavior 
contributed  to  poor  office  climate,  e.g.,  unsolicited  negative  remarks  interrupted  coun-
seling session between E-3 and O-4 in adjacent office cubicle, sensitive email sent unit 
wide, and inappropriate assumption of tasking authority w/ a senior O-3 in Dept.  OSF 
poorly documented, w/ vague or no results recorded, even though 4 IDT drills were used 
to prepare OER package”; 
removing the following sentences from block 8, which support the low mark for “Judg-
ment”:  “Sent argumentative emails to Dept. Head and XO, producing extra admin. work 
where mbr should have taken initiative to research; e.g., dispute over policy regarding use 
of health records by CG.  Inappropriate use of CG Workstation III for ‘data streaming’ 
acknowledged and practice ended”; 

                                                 
1 Coast Guard officers are rated in numerous categories of performance on a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 being best.  A 
middle mark of 4 is the “expected standard of performance.”  Personnel Manual, Art. 10.A.4.c.4.g. 

• 

raising his mark on the comparison scale in the disputed OER from the third spot to the 
fourth or fifth spot;2 and 
removing the sentence, “At times, requires more task direction than should be necessary 
for an O-4,” from block 10. 
 
The applicant stated that the negative comments in block 5 that support the mark of 3 for 
“Workplace Climate” are erroneous and unfair.  He alleged that the comment about “unwelcome 
behavior” was based on hearsay and that no one ever asked him about the alleged incidents.  He 
was never counseled about any unwelcome behavior and the term is too vague for him to refute.  
Regarding  the  “interrupted  counseling  session,”  the  applicant  argued  that  if  his  behavior  was 
noteworthy enough to be mentioned in his OER, his Supervisor should have asked him about it 
to get his side of the story.  He argued that the comment should be deleted because there is no 
corroborating evidence to support it.  He alleged that the comment about having inappropriately 
tasked an O-3 “was never substantiated despite my specific request for an example of it.”  He 
alleged that he asked the Supervisor during a counseling session for an example of such tasking, 
and his Supervisor replied, “This is NOT a question and answer session.”  Therefore, the appli-
cant argued, the comment should be removed because his Supervisor refused to clarify the com-
ment, contrary to Article 10.A.1.c.5. of the Personnel Manual. 

 
The  applicant  stated  that  comments  about  his  OSF,  which  support  the  mark  of  3  for 
“Evaluations,”  are  inaccurate  since  he  submitted  an  in-depth  OSF  (officer  support  form)  on 
March 7, 2004, and did not receive a request for more information or clarification until May 9, 
2004.   

• 

 
The applicant stated that the comments in block 8 about his emails are false and unfair.  
He alleged that the emails at issue concerned a release form that violated the privacy rules under 
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and that an officer at 
Headquarters “has stipulated that the form violated HIPAA standards.”  Moreover, he argued that 
he did research the issue extensively and his emails were not argumentative in tenor.  In addition, 
he argued that the negative comments must be deleted because the emails in question were sent 
outside of the evaluation period for the disputed OER, which is a violation of Article 10.A.4.f.11. 
of the Personnel Manual.  He noted that his OER Reply includes other substantial objections to 
the comment in block 8. 

 
Regarding the negative comment in block 8, the applicant stated that, as indicated in his 
OER Reply, “there routinely was no tasking, guidance, input or any direction provided by the 
Department Head or his designee(s).  Any tasking (normally in the form of an email) was nebu-
lous  and/or  non-specific.    [The  Supervisor]  was  seldom,  if  ever,  present  on  drill  weekends  to 
provide  face-to-face  communications  and  guidance.”    He  noted  that  in  response  to  one  of  his 
requests for guidance in October 2004, he was told that there was nothing for the reservists to do 
that weekend.  He alleged that this response was “representative of the overall lack of guidance 
                                                 
2 The comparison scale on an OER is not actually numbered but there are seven possible marks.  A mark in the third 
spot means that in comparison with all the other officers of the same rank/grade whom the reporting officer has ever 
known, the applicant was deemed to be a “[f]air performer; recommended for increased responsibility.”  A mark in 
the fourth spot would mean that he was deemed to be a “[g]ood performer; give tough, challenging assignments,” 
and a mark in the fifth spot would mean that he was deemed to be an “[e]xcellent performer; give toughest, most 
challenging leadership assignments.”   

and tasking present in the Planning Department for myself and other reservists assigned to the 
Planning Department.” 

 
The applicant pointed to his prior, superior OERs from the same unit as evidence that the 
disputed OER is erroneous and unfair.  He alleged that low marks and negative comments in the 
OER  are  the  result of his informing his Supervisor and unit Executive Officer (XO) that “the 
medical  release  form  that  they  were  trying  to  get  all  reservists  to  sign  to  access  their  civilian 
medical records violated HIPAA.” 

 
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted a copy of a letter dated October 25, 
2006,  from  the  Coast  Guard  to  a  congressman  in  response  to  his  inquiry  on  the  applicant’s 
behalf.  In this letter, the Coast Guard admitted that the medical release form to which the appli-
cant had objected was not in compliance with HIPAA but stated that it had been revised so that a 
HIPAA-compliant form was now in use.  In addition, the applicant submitted a series of email 
messages dated June 10 and 11, 2004.  In his first email, the applicant advised the Supervisor that 
the medical release form the unit command had distributed was illegal because it was “blanket 
and  non-specific”  but  that  he  would  be  happy  to  sign  a  form  to  release  his  civilian  medical 
records as long as the form showed the limited scope or purpose of the release.  The Supervisor 
replied that the Medical Manual indicated that the release form was proper and advised him to 
ensure that the unit’s health technician could get his civilian medical records.  The applicant fur-
ther responded that he would get in touch with the health technician and that “[j]ust for clarity’s 
sake, while the Coast Guard does need current medical information on its members, 42 CFR (and 
HIPAA)  does  not  give  the  Coast  Guard  the  right  to  blanket  access  to  any  member’s  medical 
information. … Additionally, HIPAA’s ‘minimum necessary’ provision precludes any agency or 
organization  from  having  blanket  access  to  an individual’s medical record without specificity, 
scope,  business  need,  and  express  expiration  of  consent  dates.  …”    In  response,  the  unit  XO 
wrote to the applicant in an email that the Coast Guard needed to ensure that he was “fit for full 
duty and deployment as a part of the CG reserves.  I’m not a lawyer, but to me that is sufficient 
specificity … .  The law is designed to prevent unauthorized disclosure and abuse—not to allow 
military members to circumvent their responsibilities.  Let’s be reasonable about the intent of the 
law and a member’s duty.  If you feel compelled to withhold medical information based on your 
understanding of HIPAA, feel free to exercise your right.  Failure to keep your medical record up 
to date as specified by CG regulations will be dealt with administratively. … I hope this clears up 
this issue.”  The applicant replied to the unit XO, saying that he fully supported disclosure of 
medical  information  and  did  not  support  withholding  such  information  and  that  his  only 
objection was to the form itself because blanket medical release forms are illegal under 42 CFR 
and HIPAA.  He stated that the form should be HIPAA compliant. 

 
The applicant also submitted another series of emails dated October 18, 2004, in which an 
officer noted that the applicant had signed up to drill twice a month instead of once a month in 
November, which was not necessary unless the applicant was working on a special project.  In 
response, the applicant offered to work on anything that needed doing because he “wanted to get 
in some additional drills before I retire, so please let me know what project or tasks you need 
help  with  and  I  will  work  on  them  on my remaining weekends.”  The officer replied that the 
applicant should only drill on his one regular weekend because “we don’t really have anything 
for you to do.  I would prefer to have you here the same day as [another reservist] on November 
13-14 so we can coordinate some work for both of you.” 

had already passed. 

ing on same. 

format. 

3.  Briefed new, incoming officer, [LCDR C] about the NVIC 9-02 project and strategy for work-

4.  Scanned in NVIC 9-02 utilizing the sheet-feeder scanner in Planning.  Saved it in MS Word 

5.  Corrected scanning errors from the scanning process. 
6.  Recreated NVIC 9-02 tables in Excel and pasted them into the MS Word document. 
7.  Attempted to update POISE website links—was successful.  My access has been restored. 
8.  Entered next month’s drilling dates into CGHRMS.  The system was up during the weekend. 
9.  Created  directories  on  the  “W”  drive  for  the  NVIC.    Created  folders  under  a  folder  called 

Plans, called North Coast, South Coast, Lower Columbia, and Upper Columbia. 

10.  Administered the re-enlisted oath to [PO L].  Signed necessary paperwork. 
11.  Followed-up with [YNC B] regarding [PO B’s] on-going pay problems. 
12.  Counseled [PO W] regarding advancement issues and two overpayment issues. 

 
The applicant also submitted a copy of his input for the disputed OER.  For each weekend 
that he drilled, the applicant provided a list of up to fifteen tasks that he had accomplished.  For 
example, for the weekend of November 9 and 10, 2002, the applicant summarized his work as 
follows: 
 
1.  Assumed and fulfilled various duties and obligations of Reserve Duty Coordinator 
2.  Waded through 83 emails, most of which were appropriate for auto-expire, given the events 

 

Beside many of the numbered items, the applicant wrote in a notation of a performance 
category on the OER form, indicating that he felt that his performance of the task supported a 
good mark in the noted performance category.  For instance, he wrote “3E” beside numbers 4, 5, 
and 10 in the list above, which indicates that he thought those tasks were examples of his efforts 
in the performance category “Professional Competence.”  He also wrote “3D” for “Adaptability” 
beside number 6; “5C” for “Directing Others” beside number 11; and “4A” for “Speaking and 
Listening” beside number 12. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S RECORD 

 
On June 27, 1977, the applicant enlisted in the regular Coast Guard.  He was discharged 
from  active  duty  on  August  24, 1984, but immediately joined the Selected Reserve, where he 
regularly drilled and performed annual training. 

 
On August 9, 1991, the applicant was appointed an ensign in the Reserve.  He continued 
to drill and perform annual training regularly.  He served as a Group duty officer and was pro-
moted to lieutenant junior grade on February 16, 1992, and to lieutenant on February 16, 1996.  
He consistently received marks of 4 and 5 on his OERs.  In August 1997, he completed twenty 
satisfactory years of service toward a Reserve retirement. 

 
As a lieutenant, the applicant first worked as an operations readiness planner, receiving 
primarily marks of 5 on his OERs.  From 1998 through 2001, the worked as an assistant surface 
operations officer and received primarily high marks of 6 on his OERs.  From May 2001 to May 
2002, he worked as a waterways analysis management officer and received very good marks of 5 
on his OER for this work.  He was promoted to lieutenant commander in the Reserve on August 
1, 2002. 
 

The disputed OER covers the applicant’s service from June 1, 2002, through April 30, 
2004, as a contingency preparedness and planning officer.  The OER indicates that the position 
required him to “[c]reate, implement, and maintain disaster preparedness plans & unit emergency 
response  plans;  develop  unit  policy  on  SELRES  management;  [and]  maintain  readiness  for 
mobilization deployment.”  In addition, as the Group’s Reserve duty coordinator, he researched 
and developed hardware, software, and database applications to support unit missions. 

 
On  the  disputed  OER,  the  Supervisor,  who  was  an  active  duty  lieutenant  commander 
serving  as  chief  of  the  Planning  Department,  assigned  the  applicant  average  marks  of  4  for 
“Planning and Preparedness,” “Using Resources,” “Results/Effectiveness,” “Adaptability,” “Pro-
fessional Competence,” “Speaking and Listening,” “Writing,” “Looking Out for Others,” “Devel-
oping Others,” “Directing Others,” and “Teamwork,” and included supporting positive, though 
not highly laudatory, comments, for these average marks.  However, he assigned the applicant 
low marks of 3 in the categories “Workplace Climate” and “Evaluations” and supported these 
marks with the following comments: 

 
Generally  pleasant  demeanor  usually  encouraged  open  dialogue.    However,  some  episodes  of 
unwelcome  behavior  contributed  to  poor office climate, e.g., unsolicited negative remarks inter-
rupted counseling session between E-3 and O-4 in adjacent office cubicle, sensitive email sent unit 
wide,  and  inappropriate  assumption  of  tasking  authority  w/  a  senior  O-3  in  Dept.    OSF  poorly 
documented, w/ vague or no results recorded, even though 4 IDT drills were used to prepare OER 
package. 
 
The Reporting Officer, who was the Deputy Group Commander, assigned the applicant 
marks  of  4  for  “Initiative,”  “Responsibility,”  “Professional  Presence,”  and  “Health  and  Well-
Being,” but a low mark of 3 for “Judgment,” with the following comments: 

 
When  first  assigned  to  Planning,  took  initiative  &  met  with  the  Dept.  Head  to  outline  duties, 
responsibility & expectations.  Some original contributions to Dept., dependably brings attention 
to  shortfalls  in  SWIII  email  policy  or  promptness  of  SELRES  pay.    Some  progress  evident  in 
obtaining Marine Safety Insignia quals., e.g., attending CPPX school.  Sent argumentative emails 
to  Dept.  Head and XO, producing extra admin. work where mbr should have taken initiative to 
research; e.g., dispute over policy regarding use of health records by CG.  Inappropriate use of CG 
Workstation III for “data streaming” acknowledged and practice ended. … 
 
The Reporting Officer also assigned the applicant a mark of 3 on the comparison scale, 
denoting a “[f]air performer; recommended for increased responsibility.”  Regarding the appli-
cant’s leadership potential, the Reporting Officer commented that he 

 
brings value to the CG through his IT skills and knowledge of computer systems administration.  
Assignment  to  an  IT  unit  may  maximize  his  technical  potential.    Capable  of  employing  skills 
gained at CPPX school to a greater extent in Planning Dept.  At times, requires more task direction 
than  should  be  necessary  for  an  O-4.    While  he  has  shown  a  willingness  to  use  his  experience, 
knowledge, & problem solving abilities to assist other SELRES members, he must take the initia-
tive to develop & exercise his leadership & management skills.  Recommended for promotion with 
his peers after significant performance improvement is documented in next OER. 
 

On November 22, 2004, the applicant submitted an OER Reply,3 which was forwarded 
without comment by the rating chain for inclusion with the OER.  In the Reply, the applicant 
complained  that  at  the  start  of  his  OER  counseling  session  on  June  17,  2004,  the  Supervisor 
stated that he would not be answering any questions.  When at some point the applicant asked for 
an example of how he had inappropriately assumed tasking of a senior O-3, as alleged in the dis-
puted OER, the Supervisor refused to provide an example and said, “Again, this is not a Q&A 
session.”  Regarding the comment about “unsolicited negative remarks” interrupting a counseling 
session between an O-4 and E-3, the applicant stated that it was unfair because the O-4 in ques-
tion had told him at the time that his comments were unwelcome.  Because the applicant apolo-
gized and the matter was never raised again, he thought it had been “resolved at that level.” 

 
Regarding the comment in the disputed OER that he had sent argumentative emails with-
out doing research first, the applicant alleged in his OER Reply that he had fully researched the 
issue by reviewing information about HIPAA on a federal government website; speaking to an 
expert  HIPAA  compliance  officer  employed  by  the  state  government;  and  calling  a  congress-
man’s office to get confirmation that there was no military exclusion to HIPAA.  The applicant 
further wrote that he was not argumentative in his emails and just respectfully informed them of 
the legal problem with the form they were distributing.  The applicant further noted that the inci-
dent occurred outside of the evaluation period for the disputed OER. 

 
Regarding the complaint about his OSF (officer support form) in the disputed OER, the 
applicant stated that he submitted it to his Supervisor on March 7, 2004, well before the end of 
the evaluation period and yet “did not receive any request for amplifying information, clarifica-
tion or inform[ation] of any discrepancies from [the Supervisor or Senior Reserve Officer] until 
May 9, 2004, when some additional clarifying information was requested.” 

 
Regarding the Reporting Officer’s comment about his needing “more task direction than 
should be necessary,” the applicant stated that his Supervisor “did not provide any substantive 
task direction during the OER period.  My supervisor consistently failed to provide feedback on 
information I submitted to him.  He routinely neglected to provide guidance on how he wanted 
me to proceed with nebulous, non-specific projects or tasks.” 

 
The applicant retired from the Reserve on December 1, 2004, with more than 27 years of 

satisfactory service. 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On November 6, 2007, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard recom-
mended  that  the  Board  grant  partial relief in this case by redacting the following phrase from 
block  8  of  the  disputed  OER:    “Sent  argumentative  emails to Dept. Head and XO, producing 
extra admin. work where mbr should have taken initiative to research; e.g., dispute over policy 
regarding use of health records by CG.”  The JAG stated that the comment should be redacted 
because the emails in question were sent outside of the evaluation period for the disputed OER.  
However, he recommended that the Board grant no further relief.  He stated that the redaction of 
                                                 
3  When  submitted  in  accordance  with  Article  10.A.4.g.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  an  OER  Reply  and  the 
endorsements of the rating chain become a permanent part of the OER filed in the officer’s personal data record. 

the one comment does not justify raising the mark of 3 for “Judgment” to a higher mark for two 
reasons.  First, the JAG argued, a numerical mark on an OER is not based on the written com-
ments.    Instead,  under  Article  10.A.4.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  the  rating  official  begins  by 
assigning a numerical mark in accordance with the written standards on the OER form and then 
adds comments to cite specific examples of the member’s performance under the category.  Sec-
ond, the JAG argued, the remaining negative comment about the applicant’s inappropriate use of 
a workstation for data streaming. 
 
 
The JAG also adopted the findings and analysis provided in a memorandum on the case 
prepared by the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC).  CGPC stated that the low marks in 
the disputed OER are properly supported by examples of the applicant’s performance and that the 
applicant has not overcome the presumption that the marks and comments are correct.  CGPC 
further stated that the rating officials were “in the best position to observe the applicant’s per-
formance and provide a fair, accurate, and objective OER.”  CGPC also submitted a declaration 
signed by the applicant’s Supervisor, who wrote the following: 

 
3. 
I have reviewed [the applicant’s] complaints … [about the disputed OER].  Contrary to 
[his] protest, I believe that the marks for each performance dimension are accurate and appropri-
ate.  With one exception, I believe that the OER comments are also accurate and appropriate.  The 
exception is the comment in block 8 [by the Reporting Officer] regarding “argumentative emails to 
Dept Head and XO.”  [The applicant] is correct in stating that the email exchanged with the XO on 
personnel  upkeep  requirements  for  Coast  Guard  Medical  Records  was  outside  of  the  period  of 
report for his OER under review.  However, I strongly reject [the applicant’s] claim that his “sub-
standard OER … was due to my informing … that the medical release form … violated HIPAA,” 
as stated in his letter (dated April 7, 2007) to the Board for Correction of Military Records.  His 
OER is a reflection of his performance over the specific two-year period, and the marks he earned 
are exclusively for that period of time. 
 
4. 
It  should  be  noted  that  …  I  was  present  as  the  Planning  Department  Head  starting  in 
August 2003. … For the period June 2002 to July 2003 [which is also covered by the disputed 
OER], [LCDR P] was [the applicant’s] supervisor.  Because I was signing [the applicant’s] OER 
for a period of report that predated my arrival, I consulted with several officers (including [LCDR 
P and three others] to document relevant performance issues for [his] OER and validate his Officer 
Support Form (OSF) input. 
 
5. 
My first opportunity to meet with the entire Planning Department at MSO/Group … was 
in September 2003, at which time I presented my goals and expectations to the officers assigned to 
it.  One of the major efforts I explained was the Department’s leadership role in creating a new 
Unit Reserve Management Instruction that would align MSO/Group … Reserve Management pro-
gram with the recently published Reserve Strategic Assessment Team report released by the Com-
mandant’s Chief of Staff.  The other major component of Planning Department work was to write 
two new unit plans:  the Regional Maritime Security Plan … and the Continuity of Operations Plan 
(COOP).    The  tasking  that  all  Reserve  and  Active  Duty  Officers  received  from me centered on 
these three programs.  I offer this information to counter [the applicant’s] claim that “there rou-
tinely was not tasking, guidance, input or any direction provided by the Department Head or his 
designee(s),”  and  that  “[I]  was  seldom if ever present on drill weekends to provide face-to-face 
communications and guidance.”  These statements, in my opinion, are not true.  In fact, [the appli-
cant’s] own OSF documents the meetings on 13 September and 15 November in which I discussed 
“Planning issues, upcoming projects, and (my) philosophy regarding the Planning Department staff 
directly and through department mentors.  Furthermore [his] OER provides ample evidence of an 
active performance feedback process (one of the purposes of an OER), documenting his input to 
the Unit Reserve Management Instruction, for example. 
 

It  should  be  noted  that  [the applicant] has submitted an email record (dated 14 and 18 
6. 
October 2004) for the Board’s consideration as “representative” of a lack of guidance by me and 
his mentors in the Planning Department.  In the email, [he] is requesting extra IDT drill weekends 
before he retires.  The reply from [CDR C] is that “we don’t really have anything for you to do” 
that  would  justify  extra  drills  in  November  2004  and  that  he  should  plan  on  working  the  same 
weekend as another officer in the Department.  [In addition, the email was written several months 
after the end of the evaluation period and after the Supervisor had left the Planning Department.] 
 
7. 
[The  applicant’s]  Officer  Support  Form  (OSF)  is  poorly  documented  in  my  opinion 
because its emphasis is on administrative tasks and inconsistently focuses on professional devel-
opment, achieving qualifications, or forwarding the goals and programs of the Department.  When 
it does focus on these issues, there is little evidence of completion or progress.  As an example, I 
suggest  that  the  [applicant’s]  OSF  be examined for the period 11-22 August 2003.  During this 
time  of  Active  Duty  for  Training  (ADT),  [the  applicant]  documented  various  kinds  of  office 
activities that he completed (read email, changed toner cartridges, provided assistance to other per-
sonnel with their travel claims, etc.).  However, ADT is a two-week period designed for profes-
sional training courses and qualifications, not administrative tasks.  A Reserve member has a year 
in which to propose training activities and courses, apply for course materials and request training 
quotas, and discuss with his supervisor the best fit for professional growth and benefit to the unit.  
Instead, [the applicant] largely filled his 2003 ADT period with local, administrative tasks.  The 
same is true for many of his weekend drills.  This is the essence of the OER comment in block 5, 
describing his OSF as “… poorly documented, w/ vague or no results recorded, even though 4 IDT 
drills were used to prepare OER package.” …  To ensure the OSF was complete, I asked [LCDR 
C]  to  obtain  amplifying  information  because  I  was  concerned  with  the  lack  of  accomplishment 
over  a  two-year  period  in  [the  applicant’s]  primary  duties  as  listed  in  the  Description of Duties 
(block 2) of his OER.  [The applicant] provided additional information, but it did not improve my 
opinion of the quality or substance of OSF documentation. 
 
8. 
[Regarding the comments supporting the mark of 3 for “Workplace Climate,”] … [t]hese 
incidents did occur before I was assigned as the Planning Department Head at MSO/Group … in 
August 2003.  They were brought to my attention by [LCDR T] and verified by [LCDR P], who 
was  [the  applicant’s]  supervisor  at  the  time.    In  addition,  [LCDR  C]  reviewed  the  OER  before 
submission and verified the information contained in the comments.  Since these incidents had a 
negative  impact  on  the  office  work  environment,  were  verifiable  by  eyewitness  accounts,  and 
occurred during the OER period of report, I documented them as written in the OER. … 
 
9. 
I feel quite strongly that block 10 of [the applicant’s] OER remain unchanged.  As a rule, 
[he] did require more task direction than should be necessary for an O-4 and his performance for 
the OER period is most accurately described as “fair” when compared to his peers in the Coast 
Guard.    During  the  time  in  which  I  was the OER Supervisor, my general observations of [him] 
were that he was technically proficient in Information Technology systems, and was often willing 
to help others with computer application and personnel administration problems.  What [he] failed 
to do, in my opinion, was to take the initiative as would be expected of a lieutenant commander in 
the Coast Guard and contribute to the primary work of the department in a way that would forward 
its completion and his own professional development, and also in a way that would promote a pro-
fessional and productive work environment. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On November 27, 2007, the Chair received the applicant’s response to the views of the 
Coast Guard.  Regarding the comment about his alleged interruption of a counseling session, the 
applicant argued that it should not have been mentioned in the OER because the Supervisor did 
not investigate it and it was based on one officer’s uncorroborated statement.  He argued that 
LCDR P could not have verified the incident because he was not a witness to it and was trans-
ferred out of the Planning Department before it occurred.  The applicant argued that if the Super-

visor thought the incident was appropriate for mention in the OER, he was obligated to speak to 
the applicant about it.  Regarding his OSF, the applicant argued that it is irrefutably detailed in 
nature. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that the OER’s inclusion of a comment about his performance after 
the end of the evaluation period proves that his Supervisor was not acting lawfully or in good 
faith.  He stated that the Supervisor’s refusal to answer his questions and provide more specific 
examples of performance during the OER counseling session also proves that the Supervisor did 
not act in good faith.  He stated that LCDR C would confirm that the Supervisor insisted that the 
counseling  session  would  not  be  a  Q&A  session,  but  did  not  submit  a  statement  from  him.  
Therefore, the Supervisor’s declaration should be deemed to lack veracity, merit, and evidentiary 
weight since he violated multiple provisions under the Personnel Manual. 
 

The applicant alleged that the OER was prepared in retaliation for his complaint about the 
non-HIPAA-compliant form distributed throughout the unit.  Therefore, he argued, it violated the 
“No Fear Act,” Public Law 107-174 and 45 CFR § 164.530(g).   

 
Regarding the Supervisor’s claims to having provided tasking, the applicant stated that 
while the Supervisor did attend meetings on September 13 and November 15, 2003, “to the best 
of my knowledge he attended no more meetings or provided in-person, email, or other written 
tasking. I encourage the Board to pull the computer login information for MSO/Group … to sub-
stantiate my claim of his lack of visibility during IDT drill weekends.  If [the applicant] did pro-
vide tasking as he claims, then I ask that he provide the documentation to prove his assertion.” 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
b.  Requests an appointment with the Supervisor, to occur not later than 21 days before the begin-
ning  of  each  reporting  period,  if  clarification  of  duties  and  areas  of  emphasis  is  needed.  …  A 
meeting shall be requested not later than seven days after reporting aboard a new unit. 
c.  As necessary, seeks performance feedback from the Supervisor during the period. 
d.  Prepares  OER  Section  1,  …  and  forwards  the  OER  with  proposed  OER  attachments  to  the 
Supervisor not later than 21 days before the end of the reporting period. 
e. May submit to the Supervisor not later than 21 days before the end of the reporting period a 
listing  of  significant  achievements  or  aspects  of  performance  which  occurred  during  the  period. 
Submission is at the discretion of the Reported-on Officer, unless directed by the Supervisor. … 

 

Article 10.A.1.b.1. of the Personnel Manual provides that “[c]ommanding officers must 
ensure accurate, fair, and objective evaluations are provided to all officers under their command.” 
 
Article 10.A.1.c.5. states that “[n]o specific form or forum is prescribed for performance 
 
feedback except for ensigns and lieutenants (junior grade).  Performance feedback occurs when-
ever a subordinate receives advice or observations related to their performance in any evaluation 
area.    Performance  feedback  can  take  place  formally  (e.g.,  during  a  conference)  or  informally 
(e.g., through on-the-spot comments).” 
 

Article  10.A.2.c.2.  includes  the  following  among  an  officer’s  responsibilities  regarding 

his own performance and performance evaluations: 

k. Assumes ultimate responsibility for managing own performance, notwithstanding the responsi-
bilities  assigned  to  others  in  the  rating  chain.    This  includes  ensuring  performance  feedback  is 
thorough, and that OERs and associated documentation are timely and accurate. 
 
Article 10.A.2.d.2. includes the following among the responsibilities of a Supervisor: 
 
a.  Evaluates the performance of the Reported-on Officer in the execution of duties. 
b.    Provides  direction  and  guidance  to  the  Reported-on  Officer  regarding  specific  duties  and 
responsibilities. 
c.    Discusses  at  the  beginning  of  the  period,  upon  request,  or  when  deemed  necessary,  the 
Reported-on Officer’s duties and areas of emphasis.  The optional OSF worksheet, or other format 
specified by the Supervisor, may be used as an aid. 
d.  Encourages the use of the optional OSF worksheet, or other convenient means, to note impor-
tant  aspects  of  the  Reported-on  Officer’s  performance  during  the  reporting  period.  Significant 
events, problems, achievements, failures, or personal qualities should be noted. 
e.  Provides performance feedback to the Reported-on Officer upon that officer’s request during 
the period or at such other times as the Supervisor deems appropriate. 
f.    Counsels  the  Reported-on  Officer  at  the  end  of  the  reporting  period  if  requested,  or  when 
deemed appropriate, regarding observed performance.  Discusses duties and responsibilities for the 
subsequent reporting period and makes suggestions for improvement and development. 
 
Article 10.A.2.e.2. includes the following as responsibilities of a Reporting Officer: 
 
a. Bases evaluation on direct observation, the OSF or other information provided by the Supervi-
sor, and other reliable reports and records. 
b. Describes the demonstrated leadership ability and the overall potential of the Reported-on Offi-
cer for promotion and special assignment such as command.  Prepares Reporting Officer sections 
of the OER; Article 10.A.4.c. 
c. … Reporting Officers are expected to hold designated Supervisors accountable for timely and 
accurate evaluations. The Reporting Officer shall return a report for correction or reconsideration, 
if the Supervisor’s submission is found inconsistent with actual performance or unsubstantiated by 
narrative comments. The Reporting Officer may not direct that an evaluation mark or comment be 
changed (unless the comment is prohibited under Article 10.A.4.f.). … 
f. Provides performance feedback to the Reported-on Officer as appropriate. 
 
Article  10.A.4.c.4.  provides  the  following  instructions  for  Supervisors  completing  the 
first 13 numerical marks on an OER form in blocks 3, 4, and 5 (similar instructions are provided 
for Reporting Officers, who are responsible for the last 5 numerical marks in block 8 of the OER 
form, in Article 10.A.4.c.7.): 
 

●  ●  ● 

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

d. In the “comments” block following each evaluation area, the Supervisor shall include comments 
citing specific aspects of the Reported-on Officer’s performance and behavior for each mark that 
deviates from a four. The Supervisor shall draw on his or her observations, those of any secondary 
Supervisors, and other information accumulated during the reporting period. 
 

e. Comments should amplify and be consistent with the numerical evaluations. They should iden-
tify specific strengths and weaknesses in performance. Comments must be sufficiently specific to 
paint a succinct picture of the officer’s performance and qualities which compares reasonably with 
the picture defined by the standards marked on the performance dimensions in the evaluation area. 
Mere repetition or paraphrasing of the standards is not sufficient narrative justification for below 
or above standard marks. 

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

●  ●  ● 

 

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

 
Article 10.A.4.f.11. states that in preparing an OER it is prohibited to “[d]iscuss Reported 

-on Officer’s performance or conduct which occurred outside the reporting period.” 

 
Article 10.A.4.g. allows an officer to submit a written OER Reply within fourteen days of 
receiving any OER in order to “express a view of performance which may differ from that of a 
rating official.”  An OER Reply is forwarded to CGPC through the rating chain, whose endorse-
ments may include comments about the OER Reply. 

 
The  written  standards  for  numerical  marks  in  the  categories  “Workplace  Climate,” 

“Evaluations,” and “Judgment” on an OER form appear as follows: 
 
Workplace Climate 
Ability to value 
individual 
differences and 
promote an 
environment of 
involvement, 
innovation, open 
communication, 
and respect. 

Sensitive to individual dif-
ferences.  Encouraged open 
communication and respect.  
Promoted an environment 
which values fairness, 
dignity, creativity, and 
diverse perspectives.  Took 
responsibility for own words 
and actions and their impact 
on others.  Fully supported 
and enforced Coast Guard 
human resources policies. 

Intolerant of individual 
differences, exhibited 
discriminatory tendencies 
toward others.  Tolerated or 
contributed to an 
uncomfortable or degrading 
environment.  Failed to take 
responsibility for own words 
and actions and their impact 
on others.  Failed to support 
or enforce Coast Guard 
human resources policies. 

1 
 
 
 
 
 

○ 

○ 

3 
 
 
 
 
 
● 

5 
 
 
 
 
 
○ 

5 
 
 
 
 

○ 

Excelled at creating an 
environment of fairness, 
candor, and respect among 
individuals of diverse back-
grounds and positions.  
Optimized use of different 
perspectives and opinions.  
Quickly took action against 
behavior inconsistent with 
Coast Guard human 
resources policies, or which 
detracted from mission 
accomplishment. 
○ 

No reports submitted late.  
Narratives were insightful, of 
the highest quality, and 
always supported assigned 
marks.  Subordinates’ mate-
rial reflected same high 
standards.  No reports 
returned for revision.  
Returned reports to subordi-
nates when appropriate. 

○ 

7 
 
 
 
 
 
○ 

7 
 
 
 
 

○ 

○ 

1 
 
 
 
 

○ 

 
Evaluations 
The extent to which 
an officer, as 
Reported-on Officer 
and rater, 
conducted or 
required others to 
conduct accurate, 
timely evaluations 
for enlisted, civilian 
and officer 
personnel. 
 

Reports were frequently 
late.  Narratives inaccurate 
or of poor quality.  Failed to 
uphold service performance 
standards by assigning 
accurate marks.  Reports 
required revision or inter-
vention by others.  Failed to 
meet own OES responsibili-
ties as Reported-on Officer. 

○ 

3 
 
 
 
 

● 

Reports consistently sub-
mitted on time.  Narratives 
were fair, concise, and 
contained specific observa-
tions of action and impact.  
Assigned marks against 
standards.  Few reports, if 
any, returned for revision.  
Met own OES responsibili-
ties as Reported-on Officer. 

○ 

Judgment 
Ability to make 
sound decisions 
and provide valid 
recommendations 
by using facts, 
experience, 
common sense, 
and analytical 
thought. 

 

1 
 
 
 
 
○ 

Decisions often displayed 
poor analysis.  Failed to 
make necessary decisions, 
or jumped to conclusions 
without considering facts, 
alternatives, and impact.  
Did not effectively weigh 
risk, cost, and time 
considerations. 
○ 

3 
 
 
 
 
● 

Demonstrated analytical 
thought and common sense 
in making decisions.  Used 
facts, data, and experience, 
and considered the impact 
of alternatives.  Weighed 
risk, cost, and time consid-
erations.  Made sound 
decisions promptly with the 
best available information. 

○ 

5 
 
 
 
 
○ 

Combined keen analytical 
thought and insight to make 
appropriate decisions.  
Focused on the key issues and 
the most relevant information, 
even in complex situations.  
Did the right thing at the right 
time.  Actions indicated aware-
ness of impact and implica-
tions of decisions on others. 

○ 

7 
 
 
 
 
○ 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

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

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

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

1. 

The application was timely. 
 

3. 

2. 

The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  make  several  corrections  to  his  OER  for  the 
period  June  1,  2002,  to  April  30,  2004.    To  establish  that  an  OER  is  erroneous  or  unjust,  an 
applicant  must  prove  that  it  was  adversely  affected  by  (a)  a  “misstatement  of  significant  hard 
fact,” (b) a “clear and prejudicial violation of a statute or regulation,” or (c) factors that “had no 
business being in the rating process.”4  The Board begins its analysis in every case by presuming 
that the disputed OER is correct as it appears in the record, and the applicant bears the burden of 
proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it is erroneous or unjust.5  Absent evidence to 
the  contrary,  the  Board  presumes  that  the  applicant’s  rating  chain  prepared  the  disputed  OER 
“correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.”6 
 
 
The applicant asked the Board to raise his mark of 3 for “Workplace Climate” and 
to  remove  the  following  supporting  comments  from  block  5  of the disputed OER: “However, 
some episodes of unwelcome behavior contributed to poor office climate, e.g., unsolicited nega-
tive  remarks  interrupted  counseling  session  between  E-3  and  O-4  in  adjacent  office  cubicle, 
sensitive email sent unit wide, and inappropriate assumption of tasking authority w/ a senior O-3 
in Dept.”  The applicant argued that the mark and comments are unfair because his Supervisor 
did not witness the “unsolicited negative remark” and never asked him about it and because dur-
ing an OER counseling session after the evaluation period, the Supervisor refused to cite exam-
ples of his “inappropriate assumption of tasking authority.”   
 
 
The  Supervisor  stated  that  the  performance  reflected  in  this  first  disputed com-
ment occurred before he assumed leadership of the Planning Department in August 2003 and that 
he was informed about it by other officers and discussed their complaints with the applicant’s 
prior  supervisor.    Articles  10.A.2.e.2.a.  and  10.A.4.c.4.d.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  expressly 
                                                 
4  Germano  v.  United  States,  26  Cl.  Ct.  1446,  1460  (1992); Hary  v.  United  States,  618  F.2d  704  (Ct.  Cl.  1980); 
CGBCMR Dkt. No. 86-96. 
5 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b). 
6 Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 
1979). 

4. 

authorize Supervisors to base the marks and comments in an OER on the reliable reports of other 
officers and supervisors.  Although the applicant complained that the Supervisor never counseled 
him about these matters before including them in the OER, the Supervisor was not his supervisor 
at the time the incidents occurred.  The applicant did not say that no one ever counseled him 
about these matters—only that the Supervisor did not counsel him about poor behavior that had 
preceded his arrival in the Department in August 2003.  The applicant does not deny making the 
“unsolicited  negative  remarks,”  but  indicates  that  he  assumed  they  would  not  affect  his  OER 
because he had already apologized.  Nor did he deny sending a sensitive email unit-wide.  The 
fact  that  the  applicant’s  “inappropriate  assumption  of  tasking  authority”  occurred  prior  to  the 
Supervisor’s arrival may well explain his refusal to discuss the details with the applicant during 
the OER counseling session.  However, Supervisors are permitted to rely on second-hand reports 
from  other  officers  and  supervisors  when  preparing  an  OER.    The  Supervisor  arrived  at  the 
Department about two-thirds of the way through the evaluation period,  and it was not unreason-
able for him to rely on reports from the applicant’s prior supervisor and other officers in prepar-
ing the OER.  Aside from his own allegations, the applicant has submitted no evidence to support 
his claims that this comment and the mark of 3 for “Workplace Climate” are false and unfair.  
Therefore, the Board finds that the applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence 
that they should be corrected. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that the mark of 3 he received for “Evaluations” on the dis-
puted OER and the following supporting comment for the low mark are erroneous and unjust:  
“OSF poorly documented, w/ vague or no results recorded, even though 4 IDT drills were used to 
prepare OER package.”  Under Article 10.A.2.c.2. of the Personnel Manual, officers may submit 
to  their  supervisors  “a  listing  of  significant  achievements  or  aspects  of  performance  which 
occurred during the period.”  The applicant submitted a copy of his purported OSF, which shows 
a  list  of  tasks  he  performed  and  meetings  he  attended  for  each  period  of  duty.    His  lists  say 
almost nothing about significant achievements or the goals of his work.  The Board agrees with 
the Supervisor that the applicant’s task lists would be of very little help, if any, to a rating official 
trying to prepare an OER.  The fact that no one complained about the quality of his OER input 
for a few weeks does not prove that the quality of that input was acceptable.  The applicant has 
not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the mark of 3 he received for “Evaluations” 
or the supporting comment about his OER input are erroneous or unjust.7 
 

The applicant alleged that the low marks and comments in the Supervisor’s sec-
tion of the OER were included in retaliation for his objection to the blanket medical release form 
distributed  to  all  the  reservists  by  the  Group  command.    However,  when  the  applicant  first 
emailed  his  objection  to  the  form  to  the  Supervisor  on  June  10,  2004,  the  Supervisor  replied 
without any evidence of hostility that the Medical Manual indicated that the release form was 
proper and that the applicant should ensure that the unit’s health technician could get his civilian 
medical records.  There is no evidence in the record that the Supervisor became angry or felt he 
had cause to retaliate when the applicant explained to the XO that the form was improper under 
HIPAA.  The applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Supervisor’s 

  
5. 

 
6. 

                                                 
7 Reale v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 1010, 1011 (1976) (holding that for purposes of the BCMRs under 10 U.S.C.  
§ 1552(a), “injustice” means “treatment by military authorities that shocks the sense of justice, but is not technically 
illegal”). 

7. 

marks and comments in the disputed OER were prepared in retaliation for his objections to the 
blanket medical release form distributed by the Group command. 
 
 
The applicant asked the Board to raise the mark of 3 he received for “Judgment” 
and to remove the following supporting comments from the Reporting Officer’s section of the 
disputed OER:  “Sent argumentative emails to Dept. Head and XO, producing extra admin. work 
where  mbr  should  have  taken  initiative  to  research;  e.g.,  dispute  over  policy  regarding  use  of 
health records by CG.  Inappropriate use of CG Workstation III for ‘data streaming’ acknowl-
edged and practice ended.”  The applicant alleged that the comments about his emails were false 
because  they  were  not  argumentative  and  he  did  research  the  issue.    He  also  alleged  that  the 
emails occurred outside of the reporting period and that the low mark and comments were pre-
pared in retaliation for his objection to the blanket medical release form.  He did not deny the 
comment about his inappropriate use of a workstation. 
 
 
 The  Coast  Guard  stated  that  the  comments  about  the  “argumentative  emails” 
should be removed from the OER because the emails were sent after the evaluation period ended, 
and under Article 10.A.4.f.11. of the Personnel Manual, performance that occurred outside of the 
evaluation period may not be mentioned in an OER.  The Board agrees with this assessment. 
 
 
The Coast Guard argued that the applicant is not entitled to have the mark of 3 for 
“Judgment” raised because that mark is also supported by the remaining, unchallenged negative 
comment about the applicant’s inappropriate use of a workstation for data streaming and because 
under  Article  10.A.4.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  the  Reporting  Officer  begins  by  assigning  the 
numerical  mark  in  accordance  with  the  written  standards  on  the  OER  form  and  then  adds 
comments to cite specific examples of the member’s performance under the category.   
 
 
Although it is true that under Article 10.A.4.c.7. of the Personnel Manual, rating 
officials are supposed to complete an OER first by assigning numerical marks for each perform-
ance category and then by adding comments to provide specific examples of performance that 
supports the numerical marks, it is clear that in assigning the applicant a mark of 3 for “Judg-
ment,” his Reporting Officer knew about and included the HIPAA emails in his review of the 
applicant’s performance under this category.  Otherwise, the negative comment about the emails 
would not have been included in support of the mark of 3.  Therefore, the Board finds that the 
mark of 3 for “Judgment” was supported at least in part by the applicant’s performance outside of 
the evaluation period.   

10. 

Although the mark of 3 for “Judgment” was supported at least in part by emails 
the applicant sent outside of the reporting period, the Board is not persuaded that the mark should 
be raised just because the comment about the “argumentative emails” should be removed.  While 
the Reporting officer apparently mentioned the “argumentative emails” in the OER because he 
thought they showed poor judgment, there is no evidence that the emails had any negative impact 
on  the  Reporting  Officer  or  Supervisor  that  would  be  motivation  for  retaliation.    In  addition, 
although the space for comments on an OER form is quite limited, the Reporting Officer includ-
ed another example of the applicant’s performance to support the low mark (misuse of the work-
station).  Moreover, the OER documents other incidents reflecting poor judgment on the part of 
the  applicant,  such  as  his  interruption  of  a  counseling  session  with  “unsolicited  negative 
remarks,” his decision to send a sensitive email unit wide, and his “inappropriate assumption of 

8. 

9. 

 
11. 

tasking  authority  w/  a  senior  O-3.”    The  applicant  has  not  proved  by  a  preponderance  of  the 
evidence that the mark of 3 he received for “Judgment” is erroneous or unjust.   

The applicant asked the Board to raise his mark on the comparison scale from the 
third spot to the fourth or fifth spot and to remove the following comment from block 10:  “At 
times, requires more task direction than should be necessary for an O-4.”  He submitted an email 
conversation, dated several months after the end of the evaluation period, in which an officer tells 
him  there  is  not  enough  work  to  schedule  him  for  double  the  usual  number  of  drills.    This 
evidence  is  insufficient  to  prove  that  the  applicant  was  denied  appropriate  tasking  during  the 
evaluation period or that the disputed comment in block 10 is erroneous or unfair.  The applicant 
has failed to prove that any of the comments in that block or the mark on the comparison scale 
should be corrected. 

 
The applicant argued that the Supervisor, in telling him twice during their OER 
counseling  session  that  it  was  not  a  “Q&A,”  unjustly  denied  him  counseling.    The  applicant 
failed to prove that the Supervisor’s demeanor and attitude during the counseling session were 
inappropriate.  Moreover, even if he had such evidence, it would not prove that any part of the 
OER  was  erroneous  or  unfair  since  the  OER  counseling  session  occurred  after  the  evaluation 
period and so any counseling the applicant feels he failed to receive because of the Supervisor’s 
alleged attitude could not have affected the applicant’s performance during the evaluation period.  
In  addition,  the  Supervisor’s  alleged  refusal  to  answer  questions  during  the  OER  counseling 
session does not prove that the applicant did not receive timely, appropriate feedback throughout 
the evaluation period. 
 
 
Accordingly, the Board should grant partial relief by removing from block 8 of the 
disputed  OER  the  comment  about  the  “argumentative  emails,”  but  all  other  requested  relief 
should be denied. 

14. 

 
12. 

 
13. 

 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCGR  (retired),  for  correction  of 

ORDER 

 

his military record is granted in part as follows:   

 
The Coast Guard shall remove this comment from block 8 of his officer evaluation report 
(OER) for the period June 1, 2002, through April 30, 2004:  “Sent argumentative emails to Dept. 
Head and XO, producing extra admin. work where mbr should have taken initiative to research; 
e.g., dispute over policy regarding use of health records by CG.”   

 
All other relief is denied. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 Philip B. Busch 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 

 

 
 George A. Weller