DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
BCMR Docket No. 2008-009
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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 October 12, 2007, upon
receipt of the applicant’s 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 June 24, 2008, is approved and signed by the three duly
APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS
The applicant alleged that his military performance record contains an impermissible gap
in his officer evaluation reports (OERs) from August 1, 2004, to April 30, 2005. He stated that
on May 1, 2005, he was promoted from chief warrant officer (CWO) to lieutenant (LT) and
quickly transferred to a remote assignment. Before his transfer, he left input for his final CWO
OER with the command, but the rating chain never prepared an OER for him. He stated that
when he inquired about the missing OER, he was told that members of his rating chain had
retired and so no substantive OER could be prepared. Therefore, the applicant asked the Board
to correct his record by ordering a “continuity OER” to be prepared to fill the gap in his perform-
ance record.
VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On February 27, 2007, the Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard recommended
that the Board grant relief in this case. In so doing, he adopted the findings and analysis provided
in a memorandum on the case by the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC).
CGPC stated the Personnel Manual does not permit gaps in officer’s performance record.
However, the applicant’s rating chain failed to prepare an OER for him and has since retired
from active duty. Therefore, CGPC concluded that a continuity OER should be prepared to
cover the applicant’s performance from August 1, 2004, to April 30, 2005, since there is no OER
for this period in his record.
APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS
On February 29, 2008, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast
Guard and invited him to respond within thirty days. No response was received. However, in
response to a query from the BCMR staff, the applicant stated that his duties were the same
during the period August 1, 2004, to April 30, 2005, as they were during his prior evaluation
period from July 1, 2003, to July 31, 2004.
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 submission, and applicable law:
The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of title
1.
3.
2.
10 of the United States Code. The application was timely.
Article 10.A.4.c.1.j. of the Personnel Manual requires all periods of an officer’s
active duty to be evaluated on an OER. The applicant’s record impermissibly contains no OER
for the period August 1, 2004, to April 30, 2005.
Article 10.A.3.a.5. of the Personnel Manual states that a continuity OER “may be
submitted in cases where an OER is required by these instructions, but full documentation is
impractical, impossible to obtain, or does not meet officer evaluation system goals.” The pre-
ponderance of the evidence indicates that full documentation of the applicant’s performance from
August 1, 2004, to April 30, 2005, is impossible to obtain as a result of the retirement of mem-
bers of his rating chain.
Under Article 10.A.3.5.d. of the Personnel Manual, a continuity OER contains
marks of “not observed” in the performance categories and no comments about the officer’s per-
formance. However, block 2 of a continuity OER is supposed to contain a description of the
reported-on officer’s duties and a statement of the reason the continuity OER was prepared in
lieu of a substantive OER. The applicant has affirmed that his duties during the period to be
covered by the continuity OER were the same as his duties during the prior evaluation period, as
described in block 2 of his OER for the period July 1, 2003, to July 31, 2004. In addition, based
on CGPC’s statements, the reason provided for the continuity OER should be the following:
“Continuity OER required due to retirement of rating chain.”
4.
5.
Accordingly, the applicant’s request for relief should be granted.
[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]
ORDER
The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his military
record is granted as follows:
Francis H. Esposito
A continuity OER shall be prepared in accordance with Article 10.A.3.5.d. of the
Personnel Manual and entered in his record for the period August 1, 2004, to April 30, 2005. In
preparing the continuity OER, the Coast Guard shall include a description of his duties in block
2, which the applicant has affirmed should be the same as the description of duties that appears in
block 2 of his OER for the period July 1, 2003, to July 31, 2004. Block 2 shall also include the
following reason for the continuity report: “Continuity OER required due to retirement of rating
chain.”
David A. Trissell
Paul B. Oman
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2008-015
This final decision, dated July 24, 2008, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to enter a “continuity OER” (officer evaluation report) in his record. How- ever, in response to a query from the BCMR staff, the applicant stated that his duties were the same during the period July 1, 2003, to June 18, 2004, as they were during his prior evaluation period from July 1, 2002, to June 30, 2003. ORDER The application of...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2005-075
that the Supervisor was responsible for assigning, as well as the recommended marks and comments that [the Supervisor] provided for the Reporting Officer sections . [The Supervisor] further states that he felt at the time that the marks assigned by the [Reporting Officer] were low based on his own observations, and although he felt [the Reporting Officer] actions were overly harsh, as his direct Supervisor and [the Applicant's] Reporting Officer he had every right to change the marks. [The...
CG | BCMR | Retirement Cases | 2007-136
The Assignment Officer also informed the applicant that if he retired on February 1, 2006, his relief would be assigned in July 2005 so that there would be a seven-month overlap. Instead, the applicant argues that his retirement date was unjust because (a) he was pressured into requesting a retire- ment date two months before that mandated by law; and (b) he had served more than 30 years on active duty and yet OPM would not make an exception to the assignment policy that would have left his...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2005-030
From June 8, 2000, to September 11, 2002, he was the air station’s Communications Officer and Command Security Officer (CSO), and as such was responsible for the security of the unit’s classified materials and head of the Communications Division, which consisted of himself and one petty officer. The applicant’s OER for the period, June 1, 2000, to May 31, 2001, shows that in addition to these collateral duties and his primary service as a first pilot and operations duty officer, the...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2007-099
1 However, the PRRB’s recommendation, which was approved by the Acting Deputy Director of Personnel on June 19, 2006, has apparently not yet been implemented since the official Personal Data Record received by the Board from the Coast Guard contains the version of the OER that describes the applicant’s title as an “Assistant Section Chief, Weekend Duty Team,” rather than “Assistant Chief, Port Security Department.” The PRRB ordered the Coast Guard to replace the supervisor’s section of the...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2005-162
This command determined that alcohol was not a factor in the incident. follows: The reporting officer evaluated the applicant's potential for future service as While [the applicant's] performance of duties was satisfactory during the reporting period, his personal conduct while off-duty was questionable and demonstrates a reluctance to acknowledge his responsibilities as an officer when he is not at work or on duty. The Coast Guard recommends, and the Board agrees, that the disputed...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2006-085
Additionally, he hosted a meeting of the Standardiza- tion Team Chiefs and Headquarters program managers at xxxxx School to review the … Manual … [The applicant] encouraged and supported professional growth of xxxxx personnel. The reporting officer’s part of the OER includes block 7, in which the reporting officer com- ments on the supervisor’s evaluation of the officer; block 8, in which the reporting offi- cer assigns numerical marks for the categories “Initiative,” “Judgment,”...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2006-065
This final decision, dated November 21, 2006, is signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant asked the Board to make the following corrections to his military record: remove the officer evaluation report (OER) for the period from June 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003 (first disputed OER); remove the regular continuity OER1 for the period from July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004 (second disputed OER) and direct that the concurrent OER for the same period replace the regular...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2008-106
In support of this allegation, he submitted a statement from the commanding officer (CO) of the Training Center, who signed the 2003 OER as the Reporting Officer, even though he was not a designated member of the applicant’s rating chain: After reviewing the statements of personnel directly involved with [the applicant’s] performance during the marking period, I do not feel that the marks and comments in [his] OER for the above period accurately reflect his accomplishments during the period....
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2002-084
Among the duties of managing his or her performance, the reported-on officer requests an “end-of-period conference” not later than 21 days before the end of the reporting period with his supervisor and informs the Commander of CGPC “directly by written communication … if the official copy of the OER has not been received 90 days after the end to the reporting period.” Personnel Manual, Articles 10.A.2.c.2.f. The Board finds that the applicant has failed to prove that his rating chain...