DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2008-152 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
   

 

 

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 June 20, 2008, 
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 February 26, 2009, is approved and signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 The applicant, who was a lieutenant commander in the Coast Guard Reserve,1 asked the 
 
Board  to  correct  his  military  record  by  raising  certain  marks  on  his  officer  evaluation  report 
(OER)  for  the  period  May  1,  2006  to  February  28,  2007  (disputed  OER).    Specifically,  the 
applicant requested that the marks in the adaptability, writing, teamwork, initiative, judgment and 
professional presence categories be raised from 3 to 4.   He also requested that certain comments, 
like the following, be removed from the OER:  
 

 Clear  difficulties  adapting  to  joint  operations  in  combat  environment;  often 
confused by difficulties adapting to joint operations in combat environment; often 
confused by 1394th DSB Commanding Officer’s  tasking,  acceptance of RAID’s 
assignments while under Army TACON & understanding personal role as RAID 
Det[achment] Supervisor, despite continual guidance from LANT & DSB . . . 

 
 
The applicant alleged that the disputed OER was prepared by the wrong rating and that 
he  had  never  even  met  the  individual  who  signed  as  his  reporting  officer.    He  asked  that  the 
Board correct the disputed OER and require it to be signed by the correct rating chain.  
 

                                                 
1  The  applicant  resigned  his  Coast  Guard  commission  effective  June  21,  2008  and  was  commissioned  as  a  U.S. 
Army Chaplain on June 22, 2008. 

 
The  applicant  further  alleged  that  although  the  disputed  OER  is  marked  as  a 
regular/detachment of officer OER it did not account for the entire reporting period.  He alleged 
that the disputed OER did not include an evaluation of his performance for the time he spent 
with his home unit or for the time he spent during the period on ADSW in New Orleans.    The 
applicant  alleged  that  he  should  have  had  not  only  a  regular  OER  that  covered  the  entire 
reporting period but a concurrent OER that covered his Title 10 assignment as the “Redeploy-
ment Assistance and Inspection Detachment” supervisor with the Army. 
 
 
The disputed OER covers only the applicant’s performance while on Title 10 orders with 
the “Redeployment Assistance and Inspection Detachment (RAID V) Supervisor at the Army’s 
134th Deployment Support Brigade (DSB) for the LANT (Atlantic) Area.”  The applicant stated 
that  105  days  of  this  period  were  spent  outside  the  continental  United  States  and  he  was  not 
under the supervision of his Coast Guard rating chain.  The applicant’s parent command appears 
to have been the “Atlantic Areas (LANT) Prevention Division.” 
 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On November 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), as follows:  
 
“a.  The  disputed  OER,  including  the  reviewer  comment  page  and  the  OER  reply  and  any 
endorsements, should be removed from the applicant’s record as null and void. 
 
“b. The applicant’s permanent unit should prepare a regular/continuity OER for the period May 
1, 2006 through April 30, 2008.  The OER shall be annotated to account for his Title 10 duties as 
“not observed” time.  The OER shall only reflect performance directly observed by the rating 
chain and not include performance that was covered by the unobserved period.   
 
“c. If possible, the rating chain for the applicant’s Title 10 period should prepare a concurrent 
OER.2”   
 
 
 

In recommending the above relief, CGPC stated the following conclusions: 

b.  The  OER  for  the  period  May  1,  2006  through  February  28,  2007,  is  not 
prepared consistent with Coast Guard policy.  The applicant was activated on Title 
10 orders for a total of 151 days and assigned outside of his IDT/ADT unit.  In 
accordance  with  [the  Personnel  Manual],  the  applicant’s  period  assigned  to  the 
redeployment assistance and inspection detachment should result in a concurrent 
OER  .  .  .    by  his  U.S.  Army  rating  chain  vice  the  rating  chain  listed  on  the 
contested OER . . .  The applicant’s permanent  unit is responsible for  ensuring 
continuity  through  regular/continuity  OERs.    There  is  no  indication  within  the 

                                                 
2   The Advisory opinion noted that “since the Concurrent OER is not counted for continuity purposes, if the original 
rating chain for this period is not cooperative or unable to prepare the Concurrent OER, the applicant will not suffer 
a gap in continuity as his permanent unit will cover the period as not observed.”   

applicant’s  record  or  CGPC-rpm  that  the  applicant’s  command  requested  or 
received approval for an alternate rating chain for the period in question.   
 
c. Coast Guard policy requires that all officers be evaluated in an accurate, fair 
and  objective  manner  and  that  an  officer’s  performance  be  measured  against 
established performance and character standards.  The applicant and the disputed 
OER indicate levels of animosity between the applicant and the U.S. Army rating 
chain  for  his  TAD  period.    Given  this  animosity,  passage  of  time,  and  the 
interagency  nature,  it  is  unlikely  that  the  original  rating  chain  for  his  Title  10 
orders  would  be  able  to  provide  an  assessment  of  his  performance  for  a 
concurrent  OER  as  required  under  [the  Personnel  Manual].    The  applicant’s 
permanent  unit/rating  chain  is,  however,  responsible  for  preparation  and 
submission of reports to cover continuity and notation of time not observed and 
Title 10 orders should be properly noted on the regular/continuity report.  
 
d.  The  OER  for  the  period  ending  [February  28,  2007]  does  not  accurately 
document the applicant’s type of OER during the period.  Applicant has provided 
evidence  that  overcomes  the  presumption  of  regularity  with  respect  to  the 
construction or submission of the disputed OER.    

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  December  4,  2008,  the  Board  received  the  applicant’s  response  to  the  view  of  the 

 
 
Coast Guard.  He agreed with the Coast Guard’s views. 
 

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.      In  this 
regard, the Board agrees with the Coast Guard that the applicant’s permanent unit committed an 
error  by  not  preparing  and  submitting  a  regular  OER  that  covered  all  of  the  applicant’s 
performance for the entire reporting period.  The Coast Guard agreed with the applicant that the 
disputed OER failed to account for the time the applicant spent with his parent command or on 
ADSW in New Orleans.  Article 10.A.1.b.1 of the Personnel Manual requires that commanding 
officers  (COs)  ensure  that  all  officers  receive  accurate,  objective,  and  fair  evaluations.    Such 
could not have been the case here because the disputed OER failed to account for much of the 
time covered by the reporting period.   

 
3.  The Coast Guard also admitted that the performance evaluated in the disputed OER 
covered only the applicant’s performance while assigned to RAID V, and therefore the disputed 
OER should have been marked as a concurrent OER and signed by the applicant’s Army rating 

chain and not his regular OER rating chain.   Further, the JAG noted that the applicant’s regular 
OER  rating  chain  who  signed  the  disputed  OER  did  not  observe  the  applicant’s  performance 
while he served with the Army.  In this regard, the applicant noted that he was outside the United 
States for the majority of the period that he was assigned to RAID V.   According to the JAG, a 
properly submitted regular OER should have counted the days the applicant served with RAID as 
non-observed.   
 
4.    In  light  of  the  Coast  Guard’s  recommendation  for  relief,  the  command’s  failure  to 
 
submit a properly prepared regular OER, and its failure to seek a concurrent OER for the RAID 
assignment  signed  by  applicant’s  Army  rating  chain,  the  Board  finds  that  the  applicant  has 
established error with respect to the disputed OER and is entitled to the relief recommended by 
the Coast Guard, to which the applicant agreed.  
 
    
5.  The applicant made other challenges as to the accuracy of the disputed OER that have 
been rendered moot by the Coast Guard’s recommendation for relief and the Board’s agreement 
that the disputed OER is erroneous.  Therefore, those other contentions are not addressed within 
this decision.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

The  application  of  former  XXXXXXXXXX,  USCGR,  for  correction  of  his  military 

record is granted as follows: 

 

ORDER 

 

1.  His OER for the period May 1, 2006, to February 28, 2007, including the reviewer’s comment 
page and the reported-on officer’s reply and all endorsements thereto shall be removed from his 
record as null and void. 
 
2.    His  permanent  unit  shall  prepare  a  regular/continuity  OER  for  the  period  May  1,  2006, 
through April 30, 2008, for entry in his record.  This OER shall account for his Title 10 duties as 
“not observed” time; shall not include any numerical marks or comments based on his perform-
ance during the “not observed” period; and shall include only numerical marks and comments 
that are based on performance directly observed by the rating chain during the evaluation period.   
 
 3.  If possible, the Coast Guard shall have his U.S. Army rating officials prepare a concurrent 
OER for him for the period he served as the RAID Supervisor under Title 10 orders.   If they 
prepare a concurrent OER for him, it shall be entered in his Coast Guard military record. 
 

No other relief is granted.   

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Randall J. Kaplan 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 

 

 
 Ryan J. Wedlund