DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
BCMR Docket No. 2008-015
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 26, 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 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. He alleged that there is an impermissible gap in his officer evaluation reports (OERs)
and that a substantive OER cannot be prepared because his Supervisor and Reporting Officer,
who should have prepared his OER for 2003 and 2004, have both retired. The applicant’s
personal data record (PDR) shows that he was appointed a chief warrant officer (CWO) on June
1, 2000. His PDR contains three annual OERs covering the period June 1, 2000, to June 30,
2003, and other OERs covering his service since June 19, 2004, but nothing covering his service
from July 1, 2003, to June 18, 2004.
VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On February 2, 2008, 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 that under Article 10.A. of the Personnel Manual, every day of an officer’s
service must be covered by an OER. CGPC noted that the applicant should have timely informed
his rating chain that the OER was missing, and the Supervisor and Reporting Officer should have
prepared the OER before they retired. CGPC concluded, however, that since the Supervisor and
Reporting Officer have retired and are no longer available to prepare the OER, the Board should
grant relief.
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 submit a response within thirty days. No response was received. 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.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1.
3.
2.
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
10 of the United States Code. The application was timely.1
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 July 1, 2003, through June 18, 2004.
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
July 1, 2003, through June 18, 2004, is impossible to obtain as a result of the retirement of mem-
bers of his rating chain.
4.
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, 2002, to June 30, 2003. 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.”
Accordingly, the applicant’s request for relief should be granted.
5.
[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]
1 Detweiler v. Pena, 38 F.3d 591, 598 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (holding that section 205 of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil
Relief Act of 1940 “tolls the BCMR’s limitations period during a servicemember’s period of active duty”).
ORDER
The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 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 July 1, 2003, to June 18, 2004. 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, 2002, to June 30, 2003. 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 | 2008-009
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. of the Personnel Manual requires all periods of an officer’s active duty to be evaluated on an OER. [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...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2003-035
On July 21, 1995, the Board issued a final decision in that case granting the applicant the following relief: The [applicant's] military record shall be corrected by (1) removing his officer evaluation report (OER) for the period from August 4, 1990 to June 26, 1991, and replacing it with a report for continuity purposes only; (2) removing his failures of selection for promotion to commander (CDR) by the promotion year (PY) 1993, 1994, and 1995 CDR selection boards; (3) allowing him to go...
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 | 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 | 2007-160
This final decision, dated April 30, 2008, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant, who resigned his commission as a lieutenant junior grade (LTJG) in the Coast Guard on August 1, 2004, asked the Board to correct his record by (a) removing two officer evaluation reports (OERs) covering his service aboard a cutter as a deck watch officer from October 1, 2002, to January 31, 2003, and from February 1, 2003, to July 13, 2003; (b) removing all documentation of...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2000-131
This final decision, dated April 12, 2001, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, who retired from the Coast Guard as a xxxxxx on xxxxxxx, asked the Board to make the following corrections to the final officer evaluation report (OER) in her record: 1. correct her middle initial from “x” to “x”; 2. correct the last four digits of her social security number (SSN) to those shown in the caption of this Final Decision; 3. correct her pay grade...
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 | 2010-031
The applicant alleged that he learned that the members of the substitute rating chain were close associates of the CO of the cutter and “may have been involved in the effort to suppress information concerning the [migrant interdiction] incident.” The applicant alleged that the Reporting Officer and Reviewer who prepared the first disputed OER were biased against him because his father had threatened the Reviewer with legal action and had reported both officers to Headquarters officials in...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2007-027
CGPC stated that the applicant did not submit his OER input to his rating chain within 21 days of the end of the evaluation period as required by Article 10.A.2.c.2.f. states that it is the responsibility of each commanding officer to “[e]ncourage supervisors and reporting officers to properly counsel subordinates by providing them timely feedback at the end of each reporting period and providing copies of completed OERs to them prior to submission to the OER administrator.” Article...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2004-179
The applicant alleged that in March 2003, she received an email from the Coast Guard Personnel Command stating that an OER was due for her for the period ending May 31, 2003. Moreover, she alleged, during those four months, LCDR X, who assumed LCDR K’s billet on July 1, 2003, acted as her supervisor on several occasions instead of CDR S. The applicant further argued that if the alteration of her rating chain was legiti- mate due to LCDR K’s alleged unavailability, then the end date of her...