DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2008-023 
 
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 case on November 8, 
2007, upon receipt of the applicant’s completed application, and subsequently prepared the final 
decision for the Board as required by 33 CFR § 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 correct his military record by raising one mark on his 
officer  evaluation  report  (OER)  for  the  period  June  1,  2005  to  February  22,  2006  (disputed 
OER).  Specifically, the applicant requested that the mark on the comparison scale (block 9) be 
raised  from  the  4th  place  (“good  performer;  give  tough,  challenging  assignments”)  to  the  6th 
(“strongly  recommended  for  accelerated  promotion”)  or  7th  place  (“BEST  OFFICER  of  this 
grade”).  The comparison scale is the block on the OER where the reporting officer compares the 
reported-on  officer  with  others  of  the  same  grade  that  the  reporting  officer  has  known  in  his 
career.      
 
 
The applicant’s marks in the eighteen performance dimensions on the subject OER were 
eleven 7s and seven 6s1, with highly complimentary remarks in the comment sections: such as 
the applicant was as an adamant team builder, developed high quality boarding packages, was an 
excellent  Coast  Guard  ambassador,  had  superior  ability,  exceeded  expectations  every  time, 
handled complex ship exercises with ease, displayed keen situational awareness, and had sound 
tactical judgment that was trusted by commodore, etc.     Notwithstanding the high marks and 
glowing comments in the performance dimensions, the OER contains a mark in the fourth place 
on the comparison scale (block 9).   In block 10 of the OER the reporting officer described the 
applicant’s potential as follows:  
 
                                                 
1   OER marks range from a low of 1 to a high of 7.  A 4 is considered to be an average mark.   

A  first-rate  ambassador  for  the  CG  .  .  .    who  deserves  greater  leadership 
responsibilities  as  soon  as  possible  .  .  .  [The  applicant]  routinely  given  most 
difficult assignments because of  reputation  for  excellence . . . 1 [of] 12 [junior 
officers] at [command].  Continues to work at [LCDR] level as [underway] STAO 
& planner for high-visibly CNT conferences/exercises . . .  Promote to [LCDR] at 
earliest opportunity.  [The applicant] has my highest possible recommendation for 
assignments  of  maximum  responsibility,  including  command  afloat/ashore.  
Highly  recommended  for  post-graduate  school.    Sound  judgment  &  ethics, 
professional  acumen,  &  leadership  qualities  will  make  this  officer  extremely 
successful at any level.   

 

 Because  the  reporting  officer  was  not  a  Coast  Guard  officer,  the  personnel  Manual 
required the Coast Guard reviewer, who is always a Coast Guard officer, to attach a sheet with 
comments and a comparison scale mark.  The reviewer gave the applicant a mark in the 4th block 
on  the  comparison  scale,  which  was  the  same  mark  as  that  shown  in  the  reporting  officer’s 
section, and wrote the following comments: 

 
 
Concur with the marks and written comments of this report.  Comments are a well 
documented reflection of [the applicant’s] continued exemplary performance as a 
Coast Guard Liaison Officer with the Navy.   
 

  * 

* 

* 

 

[The applicant] has represented the Coast Guard with distinction while serving as 
a Liaison Officer to CDS6.  Strongly recommended for promotion to LCDR with 
peers.    Strongly  recommended  for  post  graduate  school  in  program  of  choice.  
[The applicant] should definitely be assigned to positions of greater responsibility 
in the Coast Guard.   

 
 
The applicant alleged that the mark on the comparison scale of the disputed OER should 
be raised to accurately  reflect  his exemplary performance as documented on the OER.    The 
applicant  also  argued  that  his  receipt  of  the  Navy  Commendation  Award  for  outstanding 
performance for the period under review and his previous excellent OER that was prepared by 
the same rating chain, in which he received a mark in the 7th place in block 9 and similar positive 
marks  and  comments  in  the  performance  dimensions,  support  his  contention  that  the  block  9 
mark on the disputed OER is erroneous.  The applicant stated that he changed duty stations in 
February 2006 and believed that personnel at his new duty station changed the mark in error.    
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On March 18, 2008, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion recommending that the Board grant relief to the applicant, as recommended by 
the Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC) in a memorandum attached to the 
advisory opinion as Enclosure (1).  In recommending relief, CGPC stated the following: 
 

In [this] case, Reviewer Comments and a comparison scale mark were required 
because the applicant’s Reporting Officer is a Navy Officer (please note that my 
staff attempted but could not obtain a statement from the Navy officer who served 
as the reporting Officer for the disputed OER).  The Reviewer’s comments and 
comparison scale mark carry more weight in this situation because he provides the 
Coast  Guard  perspective  to  the  disputed  OER.    In  [a  statement  from  the 
Reviewer], the Reviewer recommends that the Reporting Officer and Reviewer’s 
comparison  scale  marks  be  raised  to  the  sixth  mark  from  the  left  (Strongly 
recommended for accelerated promotion).  I agree.   

As indicated above, the Coast Guard obtained a declaration from the Reviewer about the 

 
 
applicant’s allegation.  The reviewer stated the following: 
 

I have reviewed the applicant’s . . . package including both his 2005 and 2006 
OERs.  Unfortunately I do not recall the specifics of why I gave [the applicant] 
a mark of 4 on the Reviewer Comment sheet for his OER ending [February 22, 
2006]  due  to  the  time  that  has  lapsed  and  volume  of  OERs  I  have 
drafted/reviewed  since  that  time.    Although  I  had  limited  contact  with  the 
applicant during the period, I do not recall anything that would have warranted 
a mark of 4.  It appears that there was an inadvertent oversight and based on 
the  contents  of  the  OER  and  the  applicant’s  performance  level,  a  new 
comparisons scale mark is justified.  As a result, I recommend that the BCMR 
Board change the reporting officer’s and Reviewer’s comparison scale marks 
to [6].   

 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
 
Guard.  In his response, the applicant agreed with the Coast Guard views. 
 

The Board provided the applicant 30 days to respond to the views of the Coast 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

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

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

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

of the United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 

2.  The JAG recommended that the applicant’s request for relief be granted.  The Board 
agrees with that recommendation.  The Board having reviewed the disputed OER finds that the 
mark  in  the  4th  block  on  the  comparison  scale  is  not  consistent  with  the  reporting  officer’s 
declaration  in  block  10  that  the  applicant  should  be  promoted  at  the  earliest  opportunity. The 
declaration  by  the  reporting  officer  is  more  consistent  with  a  mark  in  the  6th  block  on  the 
comparison  scale  which  describes  an  officer  whose  promotion  to  the  next  grade  should  be 
accelerated.  The reviewer also recommended that the comparison scale mark be revised from the 

4th to the 6th place.  Additionally, other evidence persuades the Board that the mark should be 
revised upward.  In this regard, the Board notes that the same reporting officer and reviewer for 
the applicant’s previous OER gave him similar high marks and positive comments and marked 
him in the highest place on that comparison scale.  Additionally, there is nothing in the marks 
and comments on the disputed OER that explains why the applicant dropped three places on the 
comparison scale from the previous OER when both OERs were prepared by the same reporting 
officer and reviewer.  Last, the reviewer stated that the comparison scale mark on the disputed 
OER appears to have been inadvertent since he could recall nothing that would have warranted 
him marking the applicant in the 4th place.  He therefore recommended that the mark be raised to 
the 6th place on the comparison scale for the reporting officer’s section of the OER, as well as the 
reviewer’s comment sheet of the disputed OER.    

 
3.  The Coast Guard was unable to obtain a statement about the OER from the reporting 
officer and the Board would normally not raise a mark on an OER without the input from the 
particular rater.  However, upon reviewing the OER in question, it is clear to the Board that the 
mark in the 4th place on the comparison scale is in error or unjust because it is inconsistent with 
the  evaluation  of  the  applicant’s  performance  on  the  disputed  OER.    In  the  performance  of 
duties, communication skills, leadership skills, and personal and professional qualities sections 
of the disputed OER, the applicant received no mark lower than 6.  Further, the comments by the 
supervisor and reporting officer that the applicant was as an adamant team builder, developed 
high quality boarding packages, was an excellent Coast Guard ambassador, had superior ability, 
exceeded  expectations  every  time,  handled  complex  ship  exercises  with  ease,  displayed  keen 
situational awareness, and had sound tactical judgment that was trusted by commodore, etc., are 
not  descriptions  of  an  officer  who  is  merely  a  good  performer  that  should  be  given  tough 
challenging assignments.  Based on the evaluation of the applicant’s performance on the disputed 
OER, his skills and qualifications had far exceeded that of a good performer.   

5.  Accordingly, the applicant should be granted relief.   

 
4.    The  Coast  Guard,  the  reviewer,  and  the  applicant  agree  that  the  disputed  mark  is 
erroneous and that it should be raised to the 6th block on the comparison scale.  The Board agrees 
and finds the evaluation of the applicant’s performance on the disputed OER supports a mark in 
the 6th block on the comparison scale.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

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

ORDER 

 

is granted as follows: 

 
His OER for the period June 1, 2005, to October 22, 2006, shall be corrected by raising 
the  mark  on  the  comparison  scale  in  block  9  to  the  sixth  place  (“Strongly  recommended  for 
accelerated promotion”) and to the sixth place on the reviewer comment page.     

 
No other relief is granted.   

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Francis H. Esposito 

 

 

 
 
 Paul B. Oman 

 

 
 David A. Trissell