DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2007-196 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
   

 

 
 

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 August 
24, 2007, upon receipt of a completed application, and subsequently prepared the final 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  May  29,  2008,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  her  military  record  by  removing  the  officer 

 
 
evaluation report (OER) for the period June 1, 2003 to February 19, 2004 (disputed OER). 
 
Disputed OER 
 
 
The disputed OER is marked as a detachment of officer OER and covers the period when 
the applicant was the administration department head for Coast Guard Group Galveston.  The 
OER is divided into three parts: the supervisor’s portion, the reporting officer’s portion, and the 
reviewer’s portion.1 
 
Supervisor’s portion 
 

The supervisor’s portion of the OER evaluates the applicant’s performance in three areas: 
performance  of  duties,  communication  skills,  and  leadership  skills.  2    Each  area  has  several 

                                                 
1    Many  abbreviations  have  been  spelled  out  in  quoting  from  this  OER  and  the  final  decision  will  not  contain 
markings indicating when an abbreviation has been written in full.   
2  OER marks range from a low of 1 to a high of 7.  A 4 is considered to be an average mark as it represents the 
expected standard of performance. Article  10.A.4.c.4.g.  of the Personnel Manual.   

Demonstrated  strong  planning  skills: 
  coordinated  the  first  annual  XPO 
conference, solicited inputs for & published agenda, arranged for knowledgeable 
speakers  available  to  address  topics,  made  arrangements  for  Area(o)  visit, 
attended  to  many  last  minute  details  that  resulted  in  A(o)  meeting  all 
transportation time lines; ensures a dept representative attends various mtgs so the 
dept input is considered & info passed.   Identified various resources needed to 
accomplish tasks; ensured mail service to  LEDET’s continued; used contacts at 
local hospital to assist AUX member w/health care consultation.  Results achieved 
had positive impact:  oversight of base gym led to improved facility & increased 
usage;  coordinated  with  department  members  contributed  to  passing  MLC 
compliance  inspection;  tenaciously  ensured  travel  claims  issued  for  surge  ops 
reconciled so books balanced.  Able to  adapt to changes in tasking & priorities so 
that  discharge  packages  properly  prepared  &  expedited,  mutual  assistance 
requests  processed  in  a  timely  manner  &  members  received  needed  funds. 
Struggled to adapt to new role as department head; actions conveyed attitude that 
the move from OPS dept was a demotion vice opportunity to grow professionally 
& learn skills needed to be assigned & successful as command cadre.  Did not 
demonstrate  the  competence  level  desired  in  Group  Duty  Officer  during  STAN 
Team visit; qualifications were revoked, eventually, through hard work, member 
requalified.  Attended mentor training & drafted unit program.   

In the communications section of the OER, the supervisor gave the applicant marks of 4 

 
 
in the “speaking and listening” and “writing” categories.  The supervisor wrote the following: 
 

categories  in  which  the  applicant  is  evaluated.3    In  the  performance  of  duties  section,  the 
applicant received marks of 5 in “planning and responsiveness” and “using resources,” marks of 
4  in  “results/effectiveness”  and  “professional  competence,”  and  a  mark  of  3  in  “adaptability.” 
The supervisors wrote the following comments:  
 

Spoke  well  in  settings  where  member  had  opportunity  to  be  prepared,  such  as 
OCS  interview  panels,  staff  meetings  &  routine  briefs  on  on-going  personnel 
issues: but sometimes provided unclear information when briefing GRUCOM as 
duty  OPS,  causing  confusion  between  unit  OIC  &  GRUCOM.    Sometimes 
displayed  inappropriate  non-verbals  when  receiving  feedback.   Written  material 
improved after counseling to ensure subordinates were spell-checking, adhering to 
formatting  &  checking  references.    Submitted  well  written  articles  for  Aux 
publication.   

 
                                                 
3  Article 10.A.2.b.4.b. of the Personnel Manual states that for each evaluation area, the supervisor shall review the 
reported-on  officer’s  performance  and  qualities  observed  and  noted  during  the  reporting  period.    Next,  the 
supervisor  shall  carefully  read  the  standards  and  compare  the  reported-on  officer’s  performance  to  the  level  of 
performance  described  by  the  standards.    After  determining  which  block  best  describes  the  reported  on  officer’s 
performance and qualities, the supervisor shall fill in the appropriate circle on the form.  Subsection e. states that 
comments  should  amplify  and  be  consistent  with  the  numerical  evaluations,  and  they  should  identify  specific 
strengths  and  weaknesses  in  performance.    Further,  comments  must  be  sufficiently  specific  to  paint  a  succinct 
picture  of  the  officer’s  performance  and  qualities  which  compares  reasonably  with  the  picture  defined  by  the 
standards marked on the performance dimensions in the evaluation area.   

Sincerely committed to welfare & well-being of subordinates:  followed thru to 
acquire  additional  SWIIIs  so  members  could  have  productive  workdays  &  not 
have  to  share  computer  time;  scheduled  OPCEN  watches  to  benefit  assigned 
watchstanders; submitted departing members for awards  & prepared page 7s to 
recognize good performance.  Showed genuine interest in development of others; 
drafted unit mentor instruction for CPOs to use in developing program; worked 
with division CPO on improving skill to earn recommendation for advancement; 
acted  as  positive  role  model  for  young  girls  in  Expanding  Your  Horizons 
Symposium  &  provided  intro  on  civil  &  military  aviation;  mentored  2  JOs  on 
OER prep.  Competently directed department in preparing for XPO conference & 
MLC  compliance  inspection.    A  team  player  some  of  the  time:    worked  well 
w/subordinates  &  peers,  but  avoided  OPS  officer  when  he  returned  from  sick 
leave, failed to get member up to  speed on happenings for 2 week period; attitude 
towards & comments about co-worker did not foster esprit de corps or positive 
work environment.  Actions did not always foster open communication & respect; 
rather  than  confronting  &  engaging  constructively  chose  avoidance  &  in  some 
instances,  speaking  negatively  about  co-worker.    Submitted  timely  evaluations 
that appropriately reflected subordinates performance.   

 
Reporting Officer’s Portions of OER  
 
 
comments.  The reporting officer further stated: 
 

In block 7 of the OER, the reporting officer concurred with the supervisor’s marks and 

 
In  the  leadership  section  of  the  disputed  OER,  the  applicant  received  a  mark  of  6  in 
“looking  out  for  others,”  marks  of  5  in  “developing  others,”  “directing  others,”  and 
“evaluations,” and marks of 3 in “workplace climate” and “teamwork.”  The supervisors wrote 
the following in the comment block: 
 

[The applicant] was presented opportunities to learn critical new skills and grow 
professionally  when  member  was  given  admin  officer  duties;  responsible  for  a 
department.    Did  not  always  meet  performance  standards  expected  of  an  O-3; 
behavior in several instances was immature, lost composure easily.  Disengaged 
from  command  after  receiving  more  formal  counseling  &  documentation  of 
performance shortcomings w/actions to improve; actions & comments regarding 
co-worker caused negative work environment.   

 
 
In block 8 of the OER, the reporting officer gave the applicant marks of 4 in “initiative,” 
“judgment,” “responsibility,” a mark of 5 in professional presence, and a mark of 6 in “health 
and well-being.”  The reporting officer wrote the following comments: 
 

Sought  opportunities  for  professional  development:    Attended  Mentor  &  Gulf 
Fisheries  training  courses;  attained  advanced  rating  for  private  pilots  license  & 
active  member  of  CGAUS;  implemented  changes  in  routing  paperwork  so  that 
Admin dept could follow up on necessary action items such as ensuring members 
in  compliance  w/weight  stds  &  marks  completed.    Showed  good  judgment  in 

 
On the comparison scale in block 94, where the reporting officer compared the applicant 
 
to  other  LTs  she  has  known  in  her  career,  the  applicant  was  marked  as  a  “fair  performer; 
recommended  for  increased  responsibility,”  the  third  block  of  seven,  with  the  seventh  block 
being highest.     
 
 
greater leadership roles and responsibilities, the reporting officer wrote the following: 
 

In  block  105  where  the  reporting  officer  describes  the  applicant’s  potential  to  assume 

The  applicant  demonstrated  insufficient  maturity  &  interpersonal  skills  to  be 
successful at the O-4 level.  I do not recommend member for promotion at this 
point.  Member has capacity to be successful & develop professionally, but must 
commit  to  separate  work  performance  feedback  from  member’s  belief  that  any 
feedback is a personal criticism.  If member can overcome shortcomings, will be 
ready for more challenging leadership roles.  Member has strong desire to be seen 
as  competent  &  work  hard  toward  that  end.    Works  well  w/&  shows  care  for 
subordinates; works well w/peers if issues are not contentious.   

making recommendations for OCS candidates; qualify members as base OODs & 
hiring  the  first  civ  Group  Duty  Officer.    Took  responsibilities  w/utmost 
seriousness;  maintained  accountability  for  department  members  for  all  required 
training; ensured taskers to subordinates were replied to/followed up on; ensured 
dept  prepared  for  MLC  admin  compliance  visit.    Successfully  represented  CG; 
participated  in  highway  clean-ups;  attended  hi-visible  memorial  service;  set 
excellent  example  for  uniform  appearance  &  military  bearing  @  inspections.  
Outstanding effort as wellness coordinator: provided timely, personal counseling 
for member enrolled in wellness program to help them achieve their fitness goals; 
prepared  information  packets  for  members  on  the  CG  weight  program 
w/pamphlets  on  recipes  &  wellness;  solicited  input  for  improvements  to  base 
gym.    

 
Applicant’s Reply to the OER 
 
 
The applicant submitted a reply to the disputed OER disagreeing with the comments that 
she was slow to adjust to head of administration department, that she was not a team player, that 
she  was  incompetent  as  group  duty  officer,  that  she  exhibited  poor  communication  and 
interpersonal skills when given negative feedback, and that she was not ready for promotion.  Of 

                                                 
4    Article 10.A.2.b.8.a. of the Personnel Manual states that the reporting officer  shall  fill in  the circle that  most 
closely reflects the reporting  officer’s ranking of the reported-on officer relative to all  other officers of the same 
grade the reporting officer has known.  The provision further provides that block 9 represents a relative ranking of 
the  reported-on  officer,  not  necessarily  a  trend  of  performance.    Thus  from  period  to  period,  an  officer  could 
improve in performance but drop a category on the comparison scale.   
5 Article 10.A.2.b.9.a. of the Personnel Manual states that  the reporting officer shall comment on the reported-of 
officer’s potential for greater leadership roles and responsibilities and shall limit such comments to the performance 
or conduct demonstrated during the reporting period.  Subsection Article 10.A.2.b.9.b. states that comments in block 
10  reflect  the  judgment  of  the  reporting  officer,  and  the  reporting  officer  may  include  a  recommendation  for  or 
against promotion to the next higher grade. 

note, the applicant denied that she made negative comments about a co-worker and that the OER 
was the first time she knew of this allegation.   
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
 
The applicant made four arguments for removal of the disputed OER from her military 
record.  First, the applicant contended that the disputed OER does not reflect a consistent picture 
of her strong performance for the period under review, as required by Coast Guard policy. In this 
regard,  she  submitted  an  exhibit  from  a  Coast  Guard  web  site  which  stated  that  the  reviewer 
should “ensure [that an] OER Reflects [a] Reasonably Consistent Picture of Performance.”  In 
support of her contention, the applicant relied on a statement from LT C who, as the education 
services and training officer, worked with and under the direction of the applicant from March 
26,  2003,  until  February  8,  2004.    LT  C  stated  that  he  always  found  the  applicant  to  be 
competent, professional and helpful.  He further stated that under the applicant’s direction they 
were able to secure several thousand dollars in outside funds to renovate the unit’s weight room.    
 
 
The applicant also relied on a statement from LT P who worked with the applicant from 
July 2002 until May 2004.  LT P stated that she observed the applicant running daily search and 
rescue cases, filling in as Group Operations Officer several days a month, as well as performing 
her  primary  duties  as  assistant  operations  officer,  the  command  center  officer,  and  weapons 
officer.  LT P stated that she observed the applicant’s superiors assigned the applicant many SAR 
cases and law enforcement missions, and therefore, she assumed that the applicant’s supervisors 
were satisfied and pleased with the applicant’s performance.   LT P’s statement also indicates that 
she worked with or for the applicant when the applicant was the assistant operations officer.  She 
does  not  state  that  she  worked  for  the  applicant  when  the  applicant  became  head  of  the 
administration department.   
 
 
The  applicant  submitted  a  timeline  for  the  reporting  period  in  which  she  identified 
instances  that  in  which  she  was  congratulated  by  the  supervisor  for  her  success  in  obtaining 
mutual aid assistance for certain subordinates; instances in which she received recognition for 
certain achievements from other individuals or groups: such as creating a newsletter; receiving a 
meritorious achievement award for superior flotilla performance during 2003; receiving a Coast 
Guard Meritorious Team Commendation as part of the Air Station Houston Auxiliary Support 
Team;  and attending and completing certain courses, such as the Gulf of Mexico Basic Boarding 
Officer  Fisheries  Course  and  the  Women  Officers  Professional Association  Symposium.    The 
applicant  argued  that  her  timeline  shows  that  she  performed  at  a  level  that  exceeded 
expectations.  
 
 
Second, the applicant contended that some of the comments in the disputed OER were 
vague and lacked impact and specificity.   She again submitted an exhibit from a Coast Guard 
website  which  stated  that  vague  OER  comments  lack  impact  and  specificity.    The  applicant 
alleged that her OER contained such vague comments and offered the following as examples:  
“[A]ction conveyed attitude that move was a demotion.” . . . “Sometimes displayed inappropriate 
non-verbals when receiving feedback.” . . . “Behavior in several instances was immature, lost 
composure  easily.” . . .  “Disengaged from command.”   The applicant  noted that a difference 
existed between the specificity of the comments describing her accomplishments when compared 

to those describing her shortcomings.  She noted how the alleged vague comments with regard to 
her shortcomings appear to follow the positive comments in each section of the OER, making it 
appear as though a personality conflict developed toward the end of the marking period; or that 
the rating chain chose to put them in the OER without addressing them with her at the time they 
occurred.   
 
 
Third, the applicant argued that the evaluation of her performance is contrary to policy 
and  contradictory  to  the  feedback  she  was  given  during  the  period,  and  therefore,  the  OER 
provides an inconsistent picture of her performance.  In this regard, the applicant argued that the 
OER comment “Written material improved after counseling to ensure subordinates were spell-
checking,  adhering  to  formatting  &  checking  references”  is  contradictory  to  the  praise  she 
received from the supervisor, such as “Thanks for staying on top of this,” “Nice job,” “Thank 
you,”  and  “Nice  Job  laying  this  out.  Thanks!”  The  applicant  submitted  emails  in  which  her 
supervisor  gave  the  above  feedback.    The  applicant  also  noted  that  the  reporting  officer’s 
determination on February 23, 2004, that she was able to perform duties as group duty officer is 
evidence that the applicant was performing within a reasonably consistent, positive manner.  The 
applicant’s argument in this regard is as follows: 
 

 
 
 
 

In other words, over the first eight months of the rating period there was enough 
seen in [the applicant’s] actions and attitude that [the reporting officer] made [the 
applicant] Group Duty Officer.  Somehow, a little over 1 month later everything is 
undone.  That is simply not possible.  It sets up the contradictory information and 
it shows an evaluation that is not accurate, fair, or objective.  When writing an 
officer evaluation, the evaluation should reflect a reasonably consistent picture of 
performance.  As mentioned, [the applicant] performed reasonably well.  To add 
these contradictions goes against the intent of the OER and clearly flies in the face 
of how [the applicant] actually performed.   
 
Fourth, the applicant contended that “during the reporting period the supervisor did not 
provide any feedback that there may be negative comments in the evaluation of the reported-on 
officer.”  The applicant stated that her supervisor was responsible for providing feedback upon 
the applicant’s request, at the end of each reporting period, and at such times as the supervisor 
deems appropriate.  According to the applicant, no feedback was provided by the supervisor that 
would  have  alerted  the  applicant  to  her  weaknesses  so  that  they  could  be  corrected  to  avoid 
having them mentioned in her evaluation.  The applicant asserted that an individual development 
plan was discussed between the supervisor and herself, in which she gave good feedback but the 
supervisor did not.   

 
The applicant concluded her brief by restating that the disputed OER did not provide a 
reasonably consistent picture of her strong performance.  She further argued that based on the 
facts she presented, the disputed OER was subjective and included isolated incidents that were 
described in a vague manner compounding the inappropriateness of the evaluation.  

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On January 15, 2008, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 
an  advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  deny  the  applicant’s  request.    The  JAG 
adopted the comments from Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC) as part of 
the advisory opinion.    CGPC offered the following:   
 

Applicant’s Other Performance 
 
 
The applicant was promoted to LT on October 29, 2002. Her first LT OER covered her 
assignment as the assistant operations officer for the Group.  Her supervisor and reporting officer 
on  the  disputed  OER  were  on  the  rating  chain  of  this  earlier  OER  as  reporting  officer  and 
reviewer.  On the earlier OER, the applicant received no mark lower than 4 in any category, and 
she  was  rated  as  an  “excellent  performer;  give  toughest,  most  challenging  leadership 
assignments” on the comparison scale in block 9.  Her second LT OER was the disputed OER, 
which was discussed previously in this decision.  The applicant has three subsequent LT OERs 
covering her assignment as D17 Command Center Controller and D17 Command Duty Officer.  
She receive no marks lower than 4 with many marks in the 5 and 6 range.  The comments on 
these OERs were very complimentary and she was recommended for promotion on each one.   
 
 
chain noting that she was performing in a job normally assigned to an officer of higher rank.    
 

The  applicant’s  LTJG  OERs  were  positive  in  every  sense  with  members  of  her  rating 

1.  Based on the record, it is clear that the rating chain carried out its duties in 
accordance  with  policy  found  at  Chapter  10  .  .  .  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel 
Manual.    Under  the  Coast  Guard  Officer  Evaluation  System,  the  rating  chain 
provides a timely and accurate assessment of an officer’s performance through a 
system of multiple evaluators and reviewers  . . .  In the applicant’s case, they did 
so  . . . 
 
2.  The OER in dispute reflects a reasonably consistent picture of the applicant’s 
performance during the OER marking period.  It contains comments with specific 
examples  to  support  the  applicant’s  above  standard  performance  for  various 
performance dimensions as well as comments to support her below performance 
for particular dimensions  . . .   
 
3.  The OER does not contain vague comments.  The comments that reference the 
below standard marks cite specific aspects of the applicant’s behavior that were 
below standard.  For example, a mark of “3” was assigned for [the] Teamwork 
dimension.  The comment to justify this mark stated how the applicant avoided 
the return of another co-worker who was out sick and how the applicant failed to 
update  the  officer  on  what  that  person  missed  during  the  absence.    The  below 
standard marks are justified in accordance with policy . . .  
 
4.      The  applicant  also  states  that  the  disputed  OER  is  contradictory  to  the 
feedback she received during the period of the OER.  This is not the case.  The 

applicant was counseled on her below standard performance by [the supervisor] 
prior to the OER end of period . . . periodic comments from a supervisor such as, 
“Nice Job” and “Thank you” is common courtesy and not proof that the task was 
necessarily  completed  above  standard  or  an  indication  of  the  officer’s  overall 
performance for the entire period. 
 
5.  In summary, the rating chain carried out its responsibilities and submitted the 
applicant’s disputed OER in accordance with the Coast Guard Personnel Manual.  
They were in the best position to observe the applicant’s performance and provide 
a  fair,  accurate,  and  objective  OER.    There  is  no  basis  for  removing  the 
applicant’s OER from her record. 

The Coast Guard obtained and submitted with the advisory opinion declarations from the 

 
Declarations from the Rating Chain 
 
 
supervisor, reporting officer, and reviewer.   
 
Supervisor’s Declaration 
 

The supervisor stated that in February 2004, with the unit Chaplin present, she provided 
the applicant with a memo documenting her concerns regarding the applicant’s performance and 
recommending courses of action for improvement.  The supervisor noted that she had discussed 
most of the items found to be below standard with the applicant in other counseling sessions.   
 

The supervisor wrote that using the OER form, she provided the applicant with the following 

feedback: 
 

•  Results/Effectiveness:  the work from admin is not timely, or of the best quality.  
As an  example, discharge packages come up with errors that should have been 
corrected before arriving at my desk, including improper references.  You need to 
provide  completed  staff  work,  including  cross-checking  references  with  various 
personnel actions.   
 

•  Professional Competence:  I have not seen professional growth as admin officer, 
and was expecting training requests from you to attend training to enhance your 
admin officer skills.  You are still relying too much on my direction.  Other factors 
contributing to substandard evaluation in this category: loss of GDO & Duty OPS 
quals  (worst  test  scores  during  STAN  visit)  as  Acting  OPS,  did  not  provide 
visiting cutter w/OPORD.  You need to make a significant effort to regain your 
quals; as of this date, you have not stood any additional watches in the OPCEN to 
improve your skills.  
  

•  Speaking  &  Listening:    Your  emotional  outburst,  for  example  storming  out  on 
OPS, and tears, are inappropriate and are distracting mannerisms that at a more 
senior level, would be viewed as manipulative.  You must learn to better control 

reaction to criticism.  I urge you to engage EAP for assistance if you feel you do 
not have this under control. 
 

•  Teamwork:  You have shown strength in this area with subordinates.  However, 
you have on several occasions, avoided conflict and not engaged constructively 
when  provided  feedback,  which  hurt  team  efforts.   As  examples,  you  avoided 
OPS  when  he  gave  you  feedback,  and  you  never  did  followup  with  me  about 
naming the range after GMC [M] as I directed you to research and brief me on the 
correct and legal procedure for naming a structure after a living person.  You must 
follow up each time, and every time.   
 

•  Workplace  Climate:    your  emotional  outbursts  (crying)  and  the  perception  that 
you are sulking after being given feedback creates a tense work environment, and 
does  not  foster  open  communication.   Additionally,  your  communication  skills 
mislead  others  into  believing  situations  that  were  false  .  .  .  You  must  take 
responsibility for your words and actions and be sensitive to the impact they have 
on others.   
 
Initiative:  Did not make any effort to stand watches in OPCEN while working on 
requalifying  .  .  .  Did  not  use  or  share  knowledge  from  mentor  course  with 
Leadership council.  You need to make a visible effort to regain your quals, and to 
share information you have gained from courses attended.   
 

• 

•  Judgment:    As  duty  OPS  when  briefing  XO  as  acting,  recommended  sending 
wrong asset  . . . and not aware of limitations of assets, in another case, let people 
back  into  harm’s  way  (boat  capsized  on  jetties);  not  familiar  with  crew  fatigue 
limits and passed incorrect info to CO; thought it was ok to take leave, liberty, 
leave, and had to be directed to put in for inclusive dates or show up for work.  
Recommend  you  vet  important  decisions  if  you  are  not  sure  you  are  doing  the 
correct thing and doing adequate research to minimize mistakes.   
 

•  Responsibility.  Did not follow up as directed to name range after GMC, did not 
come and discuss lack of follow up with me after returning from leave; did not 
meet  w/OPS  when  he  returned  from  sick  leave  to  brief  him  on  2  weeks  of 
activities.  You must hold yourself to the highest standards at all times.  Anything 
else reflects lack of effort and commitment on your part. 

 

2.    I  would  rank  you  as  poor  to  fair  performer,  recommended  for  increased 
responsibility,  and  at  this  time,  I  would  not  recommend  you  for  promotion  to 
LCDR   

 
Reporting Officer’s Declaration  
 
The reporting officer wrote a declaration that the disputed OER is an objective, fair, and 
 
accurate  representation  of  the  applicant’s  performance  for  the  period  under  review.    The 
reporting  officer  stated  that  the  applicant  was  fragile  emotionally  and  struggled  at  times  with 

maintaining  her  composure  during  stressful  situations,  “which  showed  her  to  be  very 
unprofessional  and  diminished  her  effectiveness  in  dealing  with  others.”    According  to  the 
reporting officer, the applicant performed some tasks very well and others she performed poorly.  
The reporting officer stated that the applicant was given both verbal and written counseling on 
areas  of  her  performance  that  needed  improvement.    The  reporting  officer  further  stated  as 
follows: 
 

I was aware of [the applicant’s] performance deficiencies as Assistant Operations 
Officer,  Group  Duty  Officer  (GDO),  and  Administrative  Officer  during  this 
timeframe.  As Assistant Operations officer, she failed to communicate accurate 
details to me on operational missions in several instances during the absence of 
the Operations Officer, which required me to personally investigate the status on 
several law enforcement and search and rescue missions.  I recall that I rescinded 
her  qualification  as  GDO  following  her  failing  a  knowledge  exam  during  a 
Command  Center  Standardization  Team  evaluation  at  our  Group  Command 
Center.  I recall that she was the only individual who actually failed this exam, 
which led to my loss of confidence in her ability to prosecute maritime search and 
rescue,  law  enforcement,  and  homeland  security  cases,  and  required  others  to 
cover for her in these duties when she was no longer qualified.  She was provided 
very specific direction on how to requalify as GDO, but needed to be pressured by 
her supervisor to take initiative to do so, and finally requalified as GDO when she 
was nearly departed for her next assignment.     

 
 
The reporting officer noted that LT C, who provided a statement for the applicant, was a 
newly reported Ensign during 2003/2004 and was not qualified to assess the applicant’s level as 
a leader.  The reporting officer noted the same criticism with respect to LT P’s statement.   
 
Reviewer’s Declaration 
 
 
The  reviewer  stated  that  as  the  program  manager  for  Groups  and Air  Stations,  he  was 
stationed  in  New  Orleans  and  did  not  personally  observe  the  applicant’s  performance.    The 
reviewer stated that he recalled reviewing the Standardization Team results for Group Galveston 
and  noting  the  applicant’s  results  were  inadequate.    Although  the  reviewer  stated  that  he 
discussed the applicant’s performance with her rating chain, he could not recall any specifics of 
the  discussion.  He  stated  that  he  believed  that  the  disputed  OER  adequately  documents  the 
applicant’s performance and that the comments are specific and unambiguous.   

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On March 31, 2008, the Board received the applicant’s reply to the views of the Coast 
Guard.  Applicant argued that from the rating chain’s responses and the additional statements she 
submitted it is clear that she was not in an environment that provided her with the leadership 
necessary to ensure that she received a fair, objective, and accurate evaluation.   
 
 
Apparently the applicant’s supervisor had a profile on match.com in which she described 
her job as follows:  “Help! I need a life! Currently an executive officer.  This is akin to being an 

Adult Day Care Director.  I love the CG, but am looking forward to life on the outside in some 
significant capacity for a non-profit organization.”  According to the applicant, the supervisor’s 
match.com comments were well-known throughout the Coast Guard. The applicant argued that 
with  the  supervisor’s  attitude  about  her  job  as  demonstrated  through  her  comments  on 
match.com, “there is little surprise that [the supervisor] would believe the [the applicant] was 
‘still  relying  too  much  on  [the  supervisor]  for  direction.’”   The  applicant  also  argued  that  the 
supervisor’s attitude explained why she felt the applicant would need to make “significant effort” 
to regain her group duty officer qualification.   The applicant stated that the supervisor’s attitude 
was not that of an officer with the state of mind to give fair, objective, accurate feedback, but that 
of an officer who believed that she was managing adults in a “day care” who got into trouble and 
could only get out of trouble if they followed the subjective rules of the “day care” as defined by 
the  supervisor.    She  argued  that  this  was  the  situation  in  which  she  found  herself  with  the 
supervisor. 
 
The  applicant  argued  that  “it  is  reasonable  to  understand  that  non-verbals  may  be 
 
confusing and cause vague comments [in the disputed OER] when [the applicant] is directed to 
do diametrically opposite missions.”  For instance, counseling the applicant that she relied too 
much on the supervisor but still advising her that she must follow-up with the supervisor each 
and every time are contradictory instructions.   
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  the  supervisor  was  providing  the  reporting  officer  with  a 
distorted picture of the applicant’s performance because “one officer in [the supervisor’s] “adult 
day care” is not following the conflicting rules laid down by [the] supervisor, therefore making 
[the  supervisor’s]  babysitting  duties  more  difficult.    The  applicant  further  alleged  that  the 
supervisor gave the reporting officer the impression that the supervisor was providing sufficient 
feedback to the applicant when in fact she was not.  Because of the supervisor’s alleged actions, 
the applicant argued that she was placed in the following difficult situation: 
 
“1. She is wrong if she does research and reports back because she will be relying on the CO too 
much. 
 
“2. She is wrong if she makes a decision while not relying on the XO because she needs to report 
back to the XO each time, and every time. 
 
“3. She is wrong if due to the circumstances her composure is not always perfect.”   
 
The applicant submitted six additional statements that she contended showed the disputed 
 
OER to be unfair, inaccurate, or non-objective.  She alleged that each of the statements share a 
common  theme  [although  she  does  not  identify  the  theme].  In  support  of  her  contention,  she 
offered the following quotes from five of the statements:  
 

1.  OS1 J stated, “I observed [the applicant] being briefed on several highly stressful and 
complicated  search  and  rescue  cases.    She  kept  calm  and  behaved  appropriately  in  these 
situations.    I  never  once  saw  her  upset,  with  a  bad  attitude  or  interact  negatively  with  her 
subordinates  or  superiors.”      OS1  J  also  stated  that  from  June  2003  to  March  2004  he  was  a 
search and rescue controller and a subordinate of the applicant’s.   

 

 

 

4.  LCDR L was chief of the planning department at the neighboring Marine Safety Unit 
Galveston from September 2001 until March 2004.  The applicant quoted the following from his 
sworn statement:    
 

I  worked with then  LTJG [applicant’s name] on a daily basis for the  first eight 
months  following  9-11.    During  that  time,  I  came  to  see  her  as  a  consummate 
professional, a true leader dedicated to mission accomplishment and care of her 
personnel, and as an inquisitive junior officer, constantly striving to lean how to 
do more with the limited resources available to the Coast Guard.   
 
2003  heralded  some  significant  command  changes  within  the  region  in  general 
and at Group Galveston in particular.  The new command cadre was constantly at 
a disadvantage assimilating into the operational and marine safety interoperability 
that had been the hallmark of successful operations since September 2001. 

2.  Captain J stated:  “An articulate and confident speaker; quickly adjusted to changing 
needs and priorities in a high OPTEMPO AOR; Exceptional team player; self starter; outstanding 
judgment; and an extremely knowledgeable, effective dedicated officer.”  Captain J stated that 
from June 2000 to April 2003, he was the Commander, Group Galveston and had an opportunity 
to observe the applicant on a daily basis. 
 

3.    Former YN V  stated:    “[Of  the  applicant]  It  is  essential  to  have  the  support  of  an 
experienced  person,  who  holds  appropriate  military  seniority,  when  trying  to  excel  within  the 
military.”    The  YN  stated  that  from  November  2000  until  2003  the  applicant  was  her  direct 
supervisor.  The YN further stated: 
 

Admittedly it was discouraging to lose the guidance, mentioned above, following 
the Change of Command in 2003-2004 when [the applicant] was then transferred 
to fill an administration officer position.  From my observation, once [there], she 
was no longer given as many opportunities to attend valuable trainings, and was 
presented with numerous unwarranted preventable, and unexplainable challenges  
. . . It is important to note that I also recall a profound downward shift in base-
wide morale during this period.   

The  applicant  wrote  that  LCDR  L  noted  friction  between  Group  Galveston  and  other 
regional units as well as within Group Galveston.  In this regard, the LCDR wrote the following: 
 

One of the highlights of these “antics” was when the Deputy Group Commander 
[applicant’s supervisor] described her responsibilities as something on the order of 
a  “professional  babysitter  for  350  grown  men:  on  match.com.    This  lack  of 
leadership  and  professionalism  was  well  known  throughout  the  Houston-
Galveston Coast Guard community. 
 

I would be honored to have [the applicant] serve with me at anytime during any 
crisis.    She  is  a  dynamic  leader  who  is  able  to  make  a  positive  in  the  lives  of 
others and security of our nation.  

 

5.    Captain  C  echoed  the  positive  statement  about  the  applicant,  and  according  to  the 
applicant,  his  statement  shed  additional  light  on  her  rating  chain.    The  applicant  quoted  the 
following from captains C’s affidavit: 

 
We had some tough management issues for a six month [period] before I reported.  
ENS [the applicant’s name], in her first year of commissioning was handling it all 
despite it being a full time LCDR (O-4) position.  As Acting Chief for Fisheries, I 
received  a  plethora  of  feed  back  when  I  arrived,  from  many  different  sources 
complimenting this junior officer on her accomplishment and ability to hang in 
with the heavy hitters around the table to the high  quality  written products she 
produces.  [The applicant] had the reputation for being one of the best that ever 
served on the councils and was over achieving three ranks.  
 
Since departing D7 (ole), I had the pleasure of following [the applicant’s] career.  
She sought me out for professional advice discussing her career path as well as 
the difficult challenges she encountered with her unsupportive command.  When I 
heard of the trouble in Galveston, I did some research into the matter.  I learned 
from other members of the command that her performance was still top shelf but 
that her CO and XO just did not appreciate her or recognize her abilities.  We in 
D7 were shocked as this woman was performing a difficult job previously several 
ranks above her pay grade and excelling.  Something was wrong and I attribute it 
to the lack of leadership that her XO exercised.  Additionally, the XO polluted the 
waters with the CO as well. [The] XO had a history of putting down folks under 
her  and  this  is  not  the  first  time  I  heard  this.    I  am  concerned  about  the  Coast 
Guard  saying  that  our  people  are  our  greatest  resources  but  then  treating  them 
poorly and not appreciating them. 
 
I had the opportunity to relieve the applicant’s CO (at that time) twice during the 
past five years and most recently in the last six months.  Upon relief, within a few 
weeks  of  assuming  my  duties  as  both  the  XO  of  ISC  Miami  and  Chief  of 
Resources  and  Performance  Management  in  the  Seventh  District,  my  new  staff 
approached me and relayed their displeasure in their performance reports (OERs).  
All felt that they were marked low and they did not feel that they were treated 
well.  These members included officers from the ranks of LTJG to CDR.  Thus, 
there is an established history of low marking and treating people in a way that 
they felt unimportant and unappreciated.   

The applicant’s military record reveals the Captain C was her supervisor from October 1, 

 
 
1999 to June 30, 2000.   
 
 
 

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: 
 

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

1. 

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.  To establish that an OER is erroneous or unjust, an applicant must prove that it was 
adversely  affected  by  a  “misstatement  of  significant  hard  fact,”  factors  that  “had  no  business 
being in the rating process,” or a “clear and prejudicial violation of a statute or regulation.”6  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.7     
 

4.  The Board notes that the disputed OER was the first the applicant received in her new 
assignment  as  the  head  of  the  administration  department  and  the  first  under  the  day-to-day 
direction  of  the  supervisor,  although  the  supervisor  had  served  on  the  rating  chain  of  the 
applicant’s  previous  OER  as  the  reporting  officer.      The  applicant  has  failed  to  prove  by  a 
preponderance of the evidence that the disputed OER is either in error or unjust and therefore 
should be removed from her military record.  The applicant argued that the disputed OER does 
not accurately reflect her performance because it fails to provide a reasonably consistent picture 
of her strong performance during the period of evaluation.  However, the evidence of record does 
not support her argument.  A review of the OER content shows a rating chain that complimented 
the applicant on her strong planning skills, on her identification of resources to accomplish tasks, 
on her development of and concern for others, and on her ability to work well with subordinates 
and  sometimes  with  her  peers.  The  rating  chain  also  noted  that  the  applicant  showed  good 
judgment in certain areas, that she was serious about her responsibilities, and that she performed 
in  an  outstanding  manner  as  the  wellness  coordinator.      But  in  addition  to  the  praise,  the 
supervisor  also  noted  the  applicant’s  weaknesses  in  “adaptability,”  “workplace  climate,”  and 
“teamwork.”    In  each  of  these  three  areas,  the  applicant  was  given  a  mark  of  3  (which  is 
considered a below average mark).  The supervisor supported the below average marks with the 
following comments:   

 
Struggled to adapt to new role as department head; actions conveyed attitude that 
the move from OPS dept was a demotion vice opportunity to grow professionally 
&  learn  skills  needed  to  be  assigned  &  successful  as  command  cadre.  Did  not 
demonstrate  the  competence  level  desired  in  Group  Duty  Officer  during  STAN 

                                                 
6 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. 
7 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b). 

A team player some of the time; worked well w/subordinates & peers, but avoided 
OPS officer when he returned from sick leave, failed to get member up to speed 
on happenings for 2 week period; attitude towards & comments about co-worker 
did  not  foster  esprit  de  corps  or  positive  environment.   Actions  did  not  always 
foster  open  communication  &  respect;  rather  than  confronting  &  engaging 
constructively  chose  avoidance  &  in  some  instances,  speaking  negatively  about 
co-worker. 
 
In  addition,  the  reporting  officer  marked  the  applicant  in  the  third  category  on  the 
comparison  scale  in  block  9  and  did  not  recommend  her  for  promotion  in  block  10.    The 
reporting  officer  made  the  following  comments  with  regard  to  the  applicant’s  performance 
during the period and her potential for greater leadership roles and responsibilities:    

 
Did  not  always  meet  performance  standards  expected  of  an  O-3;  behavior  in 
several  instances  was  immature,  lost  composure  easily.    Disengaged  from 
command  after  receiving  more  formal  counseling  &  documentation  of 
performance shortcomings w/actions to improve; actions & comments regarding 
co-worker caused negative work environment.   
 
The  applicant  demonstrated  insufficient  maturity  &  interpersonal  skills  to  be 
successful at the O-4 level.  I do not recommend member for promotion at this 
point.  Member has capacity to be successful & develop professionally, but must 
work  to  separate  work  performance  feedback  from  member’s  belief  that  any 
feedback is a personal criticism.  If member can overcome shortcomings, will be 
ready for more challenging leadership roles.  Member has strong desire to be seen 
as  competent  &  works  hard  toward  that  end.    Works  well  w/&  shows  care  for 
subordinates; works well w/peers if issues are not contentious. 

Team Visit; qualifications were revoked, eventually through hard work  member 
requalified.   

[S]ometimes provided unclear information when briefing GRUCOM as duty OPS, 
causing  confusion  between  unit  OIC  &  GRUCOM.    Sometimes  displayed 
inappropriate  non-verbals  when  receiving  feedback.   Written  material  improved 
after  counseling  to  ensure  subordinates  were  spell-checking,  adhering  to 
formatting & checking references. 

 

 

 

5.    The  statements  submitted  by  the  applicant  are  insufficient  to  prove  that  the  rating 
chain’s  evaluation  of  the  applicant’s  performance  is  erroneous.    LT  C  and  LT  P  were  the 
applicant’s peers and not responsible for supervising the applicant or managing the command. As 
noted by the reporting officer, they were ensigns at the time and not in a position to assess the 
applicant’s performance  as head of the administration department or her  leadership  capability.  
Their statements presented no evidence that they were aware of the requirements placed on the 
applicant by her supervisor and reporting officer.  Nor is there any evidence that they were aware 
of  how  well  the  applicant  measured  up  to  her  rating  chain’s  expectations.    Each  wrote  very 
positive statements of what they knew of the applicant’s performance but their opinions are not 

sufficient to overcome the evaluation of the supervisor, who was responsible for the day-to-day 
supervision of the applicant or that of the reporting officer who had first hand knowledge of the 
applicant’s performance.  In contrast to the statements of the two LTs, each member of the rating 
chain stated that the disputed OER is an accurate evaluation of the applicant’s performance for 
that period.   

 
6.   Likewise, the statements from OS1 J, Captain J, former YN V, LCDR L, and Captain 
C  are  all  very  positive  in  describing  their  observations  of  the  applicant’s  performance  and 
abilities.  However, none of these statements directly contradict the judgments of the rating chain 
that the applicant struggled to adopt to her new role as head of the administration department; 
that her group duty officer qualification was revoked and had to be regained; that she displayed 
inappropriate  non-verbal  mannerism  when  receiving  feedback  from  her  superiors;  that  she 
disengaged from the command after receiving formal counseling; or that she exhibited immature 
behavior in several instances, etc. during the period under review. Unless proof is submitted that 
such statements or others on the OER were not factual, the Board must accept the evaluation of 
those  designated  by  the  Coast  Guard  to  serve  on  the  rating  chain.    Article  10.A.2.a.  of  the 
Personnel  Manual  charges  the  rating  chain  with  responsibility  for  assessing  an  officer’s 
performance and value to the Coast Guard.  Neither Captain J, nor LCDR L, nor Captain C were 
in the applicant’s rating chain for the period under review; nor do they state that they worked 
with  her  while  she  served  as  head  of  the  administration  department.    OS1  J,  as  an  enlisted 
subordinate of the applicant’s during the period under review, was not in a position to assess the 
applicant’s officer leadership skills and performance of duties. Nor was former YN V who did 
even work  for the  applicant during the period under review.   Therefore, their opinions do not 
prove  that  the  judgment  of  the  rating  chain  with  respect  to  the  applicant’s  performance  was 
inaccurate or unjust.   

 
7.  The applicant argued that certain of the less positive comments, like the following, 
were vague and lacked specificity:   “[A]ction conveyed attitude that move was a demotion.” . . . 
“Sometimes  displayed  inappropriate  non-verbals  when  receiving  feedback.”  .  .  .  “Behavior  in 
several instances was immature, lost composure easily.” . . . “Disengaged from command.”   The 
Board disagrees with the applicant and finds that the comments are not vague or non-specific.  
The  comments  when  read  in  their  entirety  on  the  OER  detail  the  applicant’s  shortcomings  in 
interacting with her rating chain and superiors.  Moreover, the applicant provides no examples of 
what the command should have stated to describe her behavior in this instance.  Certainly, the 
rating chain could have used harsher more descriptive language but that could have been more 
damaging to the applicant’s career than that actually used.     

 
8.  The applicant suggested that the evaluation of her performance, particularly by her 
supervisor,  is  contradictory  to  the  feedback  she  received  during  the  reporting  period.    In  this 
regard, she points to accolades from the supervisor thanking the applicant for work on certain 
projects or stating that the applicant had done a good job on this or that task.  However, there is 
evidence in the record that the supervisor had provided the applicant with feedback identifying 
problems  with  the  applicant’s  performance  during  the  reporting  period.    The  supervisor’s 
statement (obtained by the Coast Guard) commented that with the unit’s chaplain present, she 
had given the applicant extensive feedback on her performance using the OER form to counsel 
the applicant in each designated category.  In her reply to the advisory opinion, the applicant did 

not deny that she had received this particular counseling from the supervisor.  In addition, the 
fact that the supervisor complimented the applicant on several aspects of her performance does 
not mean that the supervisor was satisfied with the applicant’s performance in all areas of her 
responsibility as the unit’s administration officer.  The counseling provided to the applicant in 
February 2004 (with the chaplain present) certainly should have put the applicant on notice that 
her  OER  would  reflect  her  shortcomings.    If  she  was  confused  on  this  point  or  whether  her 
performance still needed improvement, she was required to seek the necessary feedback from her 
rating chain. 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.    

 

 
9.  The applicant suggested in her brief that the supervisor was biased against her due to a 
personality  conflict  and  that  she  made  false  statements  to  the  reporting  officer  about  the 
applicant.  However, except for the applicant’s allegation, there is simply no evidence that the 
supervisor  had  a  personality  conflict  with  the  applicant  or  that  she  was  biased  against  the 
applicant.  Captain C wrote that he heard that the supervisor had a history of putting down her 
subordinates.    However,  such  hearsay  is  not  proof  that  the  supervisor  was  biased  against  the 
applicant.    Moreover,  the  reporting  officer  wrote  that  she  was  aware  of  the  applicant’s 
performance deficiencies during the period.  She stated that she, not the supervisor, revoked the 
applicant’s  qualifications  because  the  applicant  failed  the  standard  team  evaluation  (STAN) 
examination  and  because  the  applicant,  as  assistant  operations  officer,  did  not  provide  the 
reporting  officer  with  accurate  details  on  several  operational  missions.    The  reporting  officer 
stated  as  a  result  of  these  events,  she  lost  confidence  in  the  applicant’s  ability  to  prosecute 
maritime  search  and  rescue,  law  enforcement,  and  homeland  security  cases.    Therefore,  the 
reporting  officer  had  personal  knowledge  of  the  applicant’s  performance  and  was  not  totally 
reliant on the supervisor for such information.    The reviewer also stated that he saw the STAN 
test results and noted that the applicant’s performance on the examination was inadequate. Even 
if the supervisor made reports to the reporting officer about the applicant, such would not be a 
violation  of  the  Personnel  Manual.    In  fact,  Articles  10.A.4.c.4.d.  and  10.A.4.c.7.d.  of  the 
Personnel Manual state that the supervisor and reporting officer shall draw on their observations, 
those  of  any  secondary  supervisors,  and  other  information  accumulated  during  the  reporting 
period.  Therefore, the reporting officer’s reliance on information received from the supervisor, if 
any,  and  the  STAN  examination  results  were  appropriate  for  consideration  in  evaluating  the 
applicant’s performance.    
 

10.    The  applicant  argued  that  the  supervisor’s  description  of  her  job  in  a  posting  on 
match.com is proof that the supervisor was not in the mindset to give fair, objective, and accurate 
feedback  to  the  applicant  about  her  performance.    Apparently,  the  supervisor’s  profile  on 
match.com compared her duties as XO to those of an adult day care director, but the supervisor 
also stated that she loved the Coast Guard.  While the adult day care comment does not place the 
supervisor in the most positive light and is somewhat disrespectful to those she supervised, it is 
not  proof  that  the  supervisor  failed  to  perform  the  duties  expected  of  her  as  Deputy  Group 
Commander.  In this regard, the Board notes that she has been promoted to Commander (CDR), 
which indicates that the Coast Guard found her performance of duty satisfactory.  

11.  The applicant also suggested that the awards she received from various organizations 
and a Coast Guard team award were not mentioned in the disputed OER.  First she presented no 
evidence that she submitted OER input asking to have certain awards mentioned in her OER.  
Even if the applicant had requested to have such commendatory material mentioned in the OER, 
whether  to  do  so  was  discretionary  with  the  rating  chain.    Article  10.A.3.b.  of  the  Personnel 
Manual  states  that  “[t]he  Reported-on  officer,  and  other  officers  or  officials  outside  the 
Reported-on  Officer’s  normal  rating  chain,  may  submit  to  the  supervisor  or  reporting  officer 
letters,  certificates,  citations    .  .  .    Supervisors  and  Reporting  Officers  may  use  or  cite  such 
reports  in  the  OER  comments  blocks,  but  shall  not  attach  them  to  the  OER.  “    Second,  only 
personal  military  decorations  issued  in  accordance  with  Article  1.A.17  of  the  Medals  and 
Awards Manual may be attached to an OER. Id.  

 
12.  The Board notes that the applicant’s prior and subsequent OERs are excellent and 
very complimentary.  She had served as assistant operations officer prior to the assignment as the 
head of administration.  However excellent previous or subsequent performance evaluations are 
not proof that the applicant performed in a similar manner for the period covered by the disputed 
OER. 
   

  13.  The applicant has failed to prove error or injustice in this case and her request for 

relief should be denied.   
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] 

The application of XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, USCG, for correction of her military record 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Donna M. Bivona 

 

 

 
 Diane L. Donley 

 

 

 
 
 Richard Walter 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER 

 

 

 
 

 
 

is denied.