DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                 BCMR Docket No. 2009-013 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

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 November 14, 2008, 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  18,  2009,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  military  record  by  expunging  his  officer 
 
evaluation report (OER) for the period March 10, 2004, through September 30, 2004, “or have a 
Special OER written to provide closure to this incident and correct the page 7 that states that I 
was arrested for several alleged crimes.”  The applicant alleged that the disputed OER and Page 7 
are  unjust  because  the  negative  comments  therein  are  “vague  and  incorrect”  and  “paint[]  an 
incorrect picture of the incident and could effect future promotions.”  He alleged that, contrary to 
the comments in the disputed OER, there was no “brawl” and “no personal weapon was used.”  
He further alleged that he was never given a sobriety test and was not, in fact, even mildly intoxi-
cated.  The applicant complained that the OER “concludes the alleged incident to be true and 
never provides closure to what happened (the facts of the incident).”   
 
The  applicant  stated  that  he  did  not  file  this  application  for  correction  of  his  military 
 
record previously because he was unaware of the impact the disputed OER would have on his 
eligibility for promotion until he recently consulted the Officer Personnel Management division 
of the Personnel Command.1  During that consultation, he learned that the members of a selec-

                                                 
1 The records reviewed by selection boards for selecting officers for promotion include such items as “page 7 entries, 
documentation of alcohol incidents, and reports of civil arrests, performance evaluations, education information, and 
awards and discipline documentation.”  UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, COMDTINST M1000.6A, PERSONNEL 
MANUAL, Art. 14.A.4.d. (Change 38, Feb. 2, 2004) (hereinafter “PERSMAN”).   
 

tion  board  would  likely  assume  that  the  allegations  in  the  disputed  OER  were  true,  which 
assumption would adversely affect his military career.   
 

In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted copies of the disputed OER; a Page 
7  dated  November 2, 2004, documenting the applicant’s first “alcohol incident”;2 and another 
Page 7, dated November 22, 2004, noting that the applicant had undergone screening for alcohol 
abuse or dependency and did not appear to meet the diagnostic criteria for either condition. 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

 

The applicant received his commission as an ensign in the Reserve and began serving on 
extended active duty on March 10, 2004, after attending Officer Candidate School.  The disputed 
OER covers his first seven months as an officer from the date of his appointment through Sep-
tember 30, 2004.  During this period, he was assigned as an Assistant Unit Law Enforcement 
Officer at a Marine Safety Office in Xxxxx, Xxxxx.   

 
The  disputed  OER  contains  good  numerical  marks3  and laudatory comments about his 
performance for fourteen of the eighteen performance categories evaluated in the OER.  How-
ever,  the  applicant  received  low  marks  in  four  categories  evaluated  by  his  Reporting  Officer, 
including a mark of 1 for “Responsibility,” a 2 for “Professional Presence,” and two 3s for “Judg-
ment” and “Health and Well-Being.”  In addition, his Reporting Officer4 assigned the applicant a 
mark in the first (lowest) spot on the comparison scale, meaning “Unsatisfactory.”5  These low 
marks are supported by the following written comments by the Reporting Officer: 
 

Demonstrated  singularly  poor  judgment  &  brought  discredit  to  CG  after  involvement  in  a  bar 
brawl in which alcohol & use of personal weapon was a contributing factor; subsequent detainment 
by  local  authorities  only  discovered  by  supervisor  when  police  were  called  after  member  was 
absent  without  authorized  leave.    Unwilling  to  take  responsibility  for  actions,  placed  blame  on 
others to explain own situation.  Failed to meet sobriety standards; use of alcohol and mild intoxi-
cation led to a bar fight and arrest. … 
 

                                                 
2  The  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual  defines  an  “alcohol  incident”  as  “[a]ny  behavior,  in  which  alcohol  is 
determined, by the commanding officer, to be a significant or causative factor, that results in the member’s loss of 
ability to perform assigned duties, brings discredit upon the Uniformed Services, or is a violation of the Uniform 
Code of Military Justice, Federal, State, or local laws. The member need not be found guilty at court-martial, in a 
civilian  court,  or  be  awarded  non-judicial  punishment  for  the  behavior  to  be  considered  an  alcohol  incident.”  
PERSMAN, Art. 20.A.2.d.1. 
3  In  OERs,  Coast  Guard  officers  are  evaluated  on  their  performance  in  various  categories,  such  as  “Professional 
Competence,” “Teamwork,” and “Judgment,” on a scale of 1 (worst) to 7 (best).  UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, 
Form  CG-5310,  OFFICER  EVALUATION  REPORT  (OER)  (March  2003)  (hereinafter  “OER  form  CG-5310”).    A 
middle mark of 4 is the “expected standard of performance.”  PERSMAN, Art. 10.A.4.c.4.g. 
4 All Coast Guard officers are evaluated by a “rating chain” of three superior officers, including the Supervisor, who 
assigns the marks for the first thirteen performance categories on an OER and supports them with written comments; 
the  Reporting  Officer—normally  the  Supervisor  of  the  Supervisor—who  assigns  the  last  six  marks,  including  the 
comparison  scale  mark,  and  supports  them  with  written  comments;  and  the  Reviewer,  who  reviews  the  OER  for 
consistency and compliance with regulation and may add a page of comments before forwarding it to the Personnel 
Command.  PERSMAN, Arts. 10.A.2.a., 10.A.2.d.1.a., 10.A.2.e.1.a., and 10.A.2.f.1.a.; OER form CG-5310. 
5 The comparison scale is not numbered, but the scale has 7 possible marks, ranging from the first spot (“Unsatis-
factory”)  to  the  seventh  (“A  Distinguished  Officer”).    A  Reporting  Officer completes the scale by comparing the 
reported-on officer with all other officers of the same rank whom the reporting officer has known throughout his or 
her career.  See OER form CG-5310. 

[The applicant’s] initial performance indicated a promising future in the CG.  However, his dis-
reputable conduct made it necessary for this command to revoke his security clearance, suspend his 
BTM qualification and prohibit his weapons & armory access.  These constraints make it impossi-
ble for him to continue performing any [law enforcement] function that requires a security clear-
ance or an ability to use lethal force.  He has lost the confidence of this command to assume any 
responsibility other than completing administrative tasks.  His potential for assuming positions of 
increased  authority  &  responsibility  is  poor.    [He]  is  not  recommended  for  promotion  with  his 
peers. 

 
Because of the marks of 1, the OER was a “derogatory” report,6 and so the applicant was 
 
entitled to submit an addendum for inclusion in his record.  The applicant opted to submit both 
an addendum and an  OER Reply.7  In his OER Reply, dated November 24, 2004, the applicant 
stated, regarding his alleged lack of responsibility, that his performance on the job had “demon-
strated a significant amount of work related to responsibility.”  He argued that his performance 
during the reporting period met all of the criteria for a mark of 2 and at least some of the criteria 
for  a  mark  of  4  in  the  category  “Responsibility,”  so  under  the  rules  for  preparing  OERs,  he 
should have received a mark of 3 for “Responsibility.”  Regarding the “Unsatisfactory” mark on 
the  comparison  scale,  the  applicant  alleged  that  the  mark  is  inconsistent  with  the  many  good 
marks and comments in the disputed OER.  The applicant stated that he is a “qualified officer 
who has made a huge mistake in my personal life,” from which he had learned a lot about appro-
priate conduct.  The applicant stated that he had never received any instructions on what to do if 
arrested by local police and therefore he did not contact his command immediately.  Nor did he 
promptly inform his family.  He stated that he did not know that it was necessary to inform them 
because the incident occurred on a Wednesday evening; he believed he would be released within 
a few hours; and he was not due to report for duty again until Friday.  He stated that he intended 
to inform his command and his family upon his release, and he did so.  The applicant acknowl-
edged that his personal life affects his career, but also noted that he had done his job as expected, 
had a large amount of remorse for his conduct, and would like another chance. 
 
 
In  his  addendum  to  the  OER,  dated  December  15,  2004,  the  applicant  accepted  “full 
responsibility  for  [his]  actions  and  poor  judgment  on  the  night  of  September  15,  2004.”    He 
admitted that his behavior was inconsistent with the expected conduct of a Coast Guard officer 
and “brought discredit to the entire organization, as well as [him]self.”  He acknowledged the 
need  to  use  sound  judgment  even  when  feeling  threatened.    He  stated  that  although  he  “pos-
sess[es]  a  license  to  carry  a  concealed  weapon,  [he]  realize[s]  that  the  decision  to  carry  [his] 
weapon with [him] that night was not a good one.”  He stated that he chose to carry the weapon 
that night for his personal safety and did not “have intentions of using the weapon or causing 
harm to anyone.  [He] also had a weapon drawn on [him].  It was [his] request that the police be 
called to resolve the situation.”  The applicant stated that his internalization of his feelings and 
                                                 
6  A  “derogatory  report”  includes  any  OER  that  “[d]ocuments  adverse  performance  or  conduct  that  results  in  the 
removal  of  a  member  from  his  or  her  primary  duty  or  position.”  PERSMAN,  Art.  10.A.4.h.1.c.    Submitting  an 
addendum to a derogatory report “provides the Reported-on Officer an opportunity to explain the failure or provide 
their  views  of the performance in question.” PERSMAN, Art. 10.A.4.h.2.  The Supervisor and Reporting Officer 
may prepare written comments concerning matters address in the addendum, and these comments are also attached to 
the OER and the addendum.  The Reviewer “shall ensure that the evaluation of the Reported-on Officer is consistent 
and that the derogatory information is substantiated. If the Reviewer finds otherwise, he or she shall return the report 
to the Reporting Officer for additional information and/or clarifying comments.” Id. 
7 Any officer may submit an OER Reply for inclusion in his military record within 14 days of receiving an official 
copy of an OER.  PERSMAN, Art. 10.A.4.g. 

intent to stay focused on his duties may have given his superiors the erroneous impression that he 
had not taken responsibility for his actions.  He alleged that he understood “the magnitude of the 
entire ordeal and that the lack of [his] outward expression of emotion in no way diminishes [his] 
remorse.”  The applicant stated that his performance prior to the incident on September 15, 2004, 
demonstrated his great potential for promotion and leadership and that it was “an isolated inci-
dent and not a true reflection of [his] overall character.”  The members of the applicant’s rating 
chain forwarded the addendum for inclusion in his record without adding further comments. 
 
 
 
In  addition,  the  applicant’s  record  contains  two  Page  7s  (CG-3307  forms)  dated  in 
November 2004, which also resulted from the incident on the night of September 15-16, 2004.  
The  first,  dated  November  2,  2004,  notes  that  the  applicant  was  being  referred  for  alcohol 
screening because he had been arrested for “several alleged crimes” committed on September 16, 
2004, when he became involved in “a fight that occurred after leaving a bar where you had been 
consuming alcohol.  The police report stated that you were moderately intoxicated and the smell 
of alcohol was present.  Your behavior, which caused discredit to the Coast Guard, will not be 
tolerated.”  The Page 7 notes that the events of that night constituted the applicant’s first “alcohol 
incident” and that the applicant had been counseled about the Coast Guard’s alcohol policies and 
about the consequences8 of any further alcohol incidents.  The second Page 7, dated November 
22, 2004, reported that based on his answers during the alcohol screening, the applicant did “not 
appear to meet the diagnostic criteria for alcohol abuse or dependence.  This appears to be an 
isolated incident.”  The Page 7 notes that the applicant was again counseled about the alcohol 
policies and treatment plans available to him upon request. 
 
 
tenant junior grade on July 1, 2008. 
 

The applicant has continued to serve on extended active duty.  He was promoted to lieu-

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On March 4, 2009, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 

 
 
advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny the applicant’s request.   
 
 
The JAG argued that the applicant has not proved that the disputed OER contains any 
factual  errors  or  other  injustice.    The  JAG  noted  that  the  rating  chain  based  their  actions  and 
comments on the police report and that the applicant’s own statements in the addendum to the 
disputed  OER  support  the  accuracy  of  the  rating  chain’s  comments.    In  this  regard,  the  JAG 
noted that in the addendum, the applicant admitted that he had displayed poor judgment, that he 
had brought discredit upon the Coast Guard, and that “his personal weapon was a factor.”  The 
JAG argued that the applicant failed to overcome the presumption of regularity accorded the dis-
puted OER and his rating chain’s actions. 
 
The JAG also adopted the findings and analysis provided in a memorandum on the case 
 
prepared  by  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC).    In  preparing  the  memorandum,  
CGPC sought and submitted declarations from the applicant’s rating chain, which are summa-
rized below.  CGPC stated that the applicant knew or should have known of the likely impact the 
                                                 
8 “Officers will be processed for separation following a second alcohol incident.”  PERSMAN, Art. 20.B.2.h.1. 
 

disputed OER would have on his career.  CGPC also stated that there are no grounds for entering 
a “Special OER” in the applicant’s record to provide “closure” for him, as that is not the purpose 
of an OER. 
 

Based  on  the  rating  chain’s  declarations,  the  applicant’s  records,  and  the  regulations, 
CGPC argued that in preparing the disputed OER, the rating chain fulfilled their duties in accor-
dance with Coast Guard policies and that the negative marks and comments in the disputed OER 
are supported by the applicant’s own statements in the OER Reply and addendum and the decla-
rations of the rating chain.  CGPC pointed out that the applicant’s allegations about inaccuracies 
of the OER comments are contradicted by his own admissions in the OER Reply and addendum.  
CGPC  concluded  that  there  is  no  evidence  in  the  record  that  overcomes  the  presumption  of 
regularity or warrants expungement of either the disputed OER or the Page 7 documenting the 
applicant’s alcohol incident. 
 
Declaration of the Supervisor 
 
 
The Supervisor stated that since his part of the OER is not in dispute, he will not address 
the disputed comments.  The Supervisor stated that he does not now have access to the docu-
mentation of the incident but was allowed to review the report of the investigation in 2004.  He 
stated that he believes that  
 

substantiated the fact that [the applicant] was involved in a fight at a bar.  The word “brawl” that is 
used in the OER to document this event is defined by Webster’s 9th New Collegiate Dictionary as 
“a noisy quarrel or fight,” which is what he was in fact a part of.  In addition, [he] was determined 
to be “mildly intoxicated” after he was arrested and a field sobriety test was administered by the 
Xxxxx Police.    As  a  result,  [he]  was  taken  into  custody and checked into a local detoxification 
center until he sobered up. 

 
Declaration of the Reviewer 
 
 
The Reviewer, who was the Executive Officer of the Marine Safety Office, stated that he 
does not recall if the Xxxxx police used the term “bar brawl” or not.  He does remember that the 
applicant “was involved in an altercation at a bar that culminated in the brandishing of a loaded 
weapon on a public street and arrest at gunpoint by local police officers.”  In addition, he stated, 
the police reported that the applicant was “mildly intoxicated,” and he had no reason to doubt 

the consumption of alcohol, use (brandishing or drawing) of a personal weapon, and an altercation 
with  another  person  outside  of  a  local  bar  were  determined  to  be  factors  that  led  to  [the  appli-
cant’s] detainment and arrest by local law enforcement officials.  While to my knowledge the per-
sonal weapon was not discharged, I believe that the police report stated that [the applicant] drew 
and pointed a weapon at another person in the parking lot outside of the bar.  Therefore, it is my 
opinion that both the Reporting Officer and Reviewing Officer comments in the subject OER are 
accurate. 

 
Declaration of the Reporting Officer 
 
 
The Reporting Officer disagreed with the applicant’s allegations that the marks and com-
ments in the disputed OER are unjust, vague, or incorrect.  He alleged that the disputed OER 
accurately documented the applicant’s actions.  He alleged that the Xxxxx police report  
 

their assessment.  The Reviewer stated that to the best of his recollection, the applicant got into 
an altercation at the bar, went to his apartment to retrieve a firearm, returned to the vicinity of the 
bar, confronted the person with whom he had had the altercation on the street outside the bar, 
drew his firearm, chambered a live round, and pointed the gun at that person in the presence of a 
number of other people. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On April 2, 2009, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast Guard 

and invited him to respond within 30 days.  No response was received.   
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

 
OER Regulations 
 

Article 10.A.1.b.1. of the Personnel Manual in effect in 2004 provides that “Commanding 
officers must ensure accurate, fair, and objective evaluations are provided to all officers under 
their command.”   

 
Article 10.A.4.h.2.d. states that when an OER is “derogatory” because of a mark of 1 or 
because it documents the officer’s removal from his primary duty, the “Reviewer shall ensure 
that the evaluation of the Reported-on Officer is consistent and that the derogatory information is 
substantiated. If the Reviewer finds otherwise, he or she shall return the report to the Reporting 
Officer for additional information and/or clarifying comments.” 

 
Article 10.A.4.c.7. instructs Reporting Officers to assign marks and write comments for 
the last five performance categories on an OER form as follows (similar instructions appear in 
Article 10.A.4.c.4. for Supervisors, who complete the first thirteen performance categories on an 
OER): 
 

b. For this evaluation area, the Reporting Officer shall review the Reported-on Officer’s perform-
ance and qualities observed and noted during the reporting period.  Then, for each performance 
dimension, the Reporting Officer shall carefully read the standards and compare the Reported-on 
Officer’s performance to the level of performance described by the standards.  The Reporting Offi-
cer shall take care to compare the officer’s performance and qualities against the standards - not to 
other officers and not to the same officer in a previous reporting period.  After determining which 
standard  best  describes  the  Reported-on  Officer’s  performance  and qualities during the marking 
period, the Reporting Officer fills in the appropriate circle on the form in ink. 

•   •   • 

d.  In  the  “comments”  block  following  this  evaluation  area,  the  Reporting  Officer  shall  include 
comments citing specific aspects of the Reported-on Officer’s performance and behavior for each 
mark that deviates from a four.  The Reporting Officer shall draw on his or her own observations, 
information provided by the Supervisor, and other information accumulated during the reporting 
period. 
e. Comments should amplify and be consistent with the numerical evaluations.  They should iden-
tify  specific  strengths  and  weaknesses  in  performance.    Well-written  comments  must  be  suffi-
ciently specific to paint a succinct picture of the officer’s performance and qualities which com-
pares reasonably with the picture defined by the standards marked on the performance dimensions 
in the evaluation area. Mere repetition or paraphrasing of the standards is not sufficient narrative 
justification for marks. 

f.  Citing  weaknesses  does  not  make  the  OER  derogatory  unless  the  OER  contains  a  derogatory 
mark in accordance with Article 10.A.4.h. 
g. All comments shall be confined to the space allotted to the Reporting Officer.  No comments 
shall be continued from one comment block to another. 

 
 
Article 10.A.4.c.8.a. instructs the Reporting Officer to complete the comparison scale on 
an OER by filling in the circle that most accurately reflects his or her ranking of the reported-on 
officer  in  comparison  to  all  other  officers  of  the  same  grade  whom  the  reporting  officer  has 
known. 
 
Alcohol Regulations 
 
 
Article 20.A.2.d.1. of the Personnel Manual in effect in 2004 defines an “alcohol inci-
dent” as “[a]ny behavior, in which alcohol is determined, by the commanding officer, to be a sig-
nificant or causative factor, that results in the member’s loss of ability to perform assigned duties, 
brings discredit upon the Uniformed Services, or is a violation of the Uniform Code of Military 
Justice, Federal, State, or local laws.  The member need not be found guilty at court-martial, in a 
civilian court, or be awarded non-judicial punishment for the behavior to be considered an alco-
hol incident.” 
 

Article 20.B.2.g. states that after a member’s first “alcohol incident,” the member shall be 
counseled  about  the  Coast  Guard’s  alcohol abuse policies under Article 20, including the fact 
that a second “alcohol incident” will result in an officer’s separation from the Coast Guard, and 
the incident and the counseling will be documented in the member’s record. 
 
 
Article 20.B.2.e.1. states any member involved in a “alcohol incident” shall be screened 
for  alcohol  abuse  and  the  results  and any recommended treatment shall be documented in the 
member’s record. 
 

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  over  this  matter  pursuant  to  10  U.S.C.  § 1552.  The 

application was timely.9   

  
1. 

 
2. 

The  applicant  has  asked  the  Board  to  expunge  the  disputed  OER  because,  he 
alleged, the marks are unfair and that the comments are vague and inaccurate.  The Board begins 
its analysis by presuming that the disputed OER in an applicant’s military record is correct and 
fair, and the applicant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
OER is erroneous or unjust.10 Absent specific evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes that 
                                                 
9 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”). 
10 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b); see Docket No. 2000-194, at 35-40 (DOT BCMR, Apr. 25, 2002, approved by the Deputy 
General Counsel, May 29, 2002) (rejecting the “clear and convincing” evidence standard recommended by the Coast 
Guard and adopting the “preponderance of the evidence” standard for all cases prior to the promulgation of the latter 
standard in 2003 in 33 C.F.R.§ 52.24(b)). 

3. 

4. 

the members of an applicant’s rating chain have acted “correctly, lawfully, and in good faith” in 
preparing  their  evaluations.11    To  be  entitled  to  relief,  the  applicant  cannot  “merely  allege  or 
prove that an [OER] seems inaccurate, incomplete or subjective in some sense,” but must prove 
that the disputed OER was adversely affected by a “misstatement of significant hard fact,” factors 
“which  had  no  business  being  in  the  rating  process,”  or  a  prejudicial  violation  of  a  statute  or 
regulation.12   
 
 The applicant has failed to submit any evidence, aside from his own allegation, to 
 
prove that the marks and comments in the disputed OER are inaccurate or unfair.  Not only is the 
OER presumptively correct, but its accuracy is amply supported by the applicant’s admissions in 
his OER Reply and addendum and in the declarations of the rating chain.  In addition, the Board 
notes that the Reporting Officer’s low numerical marks for the categories “Judgment,” “Respon-
sibility,” “Professional Presence,” and “Health and Well-Being” are supported by comments cit-
ing specific aspects of the applicant’s performance and conduct that warranted deviation below a 
mark of 4, as required by Article 10.A.4.c.7.d. of the Personnel Manual.  
 
 
 The  applicant  argued  that  the  OER  comments  are  too  vague.  Given the space 
limitations on an OER form, it is generally impossible for a Supervisor or Reporting Officer to 
describe in perfect detail every aspect of a member’s conduct and performance that justifies a 
particular numerical mark, and such specificity is not required under Article 10.A.4.c. of the Per-
sonnel Manual.  The Board finds that the negative comments entered in the disputed OER by the 
Reporting Officer are “sufficiently specific to paint a succinct picture of the officer’s perform-
ance”  that  warranted  the  low  marks  for  the  categories  “Judgment,”  “Responsibility,”  “Profes-
sional  Presence,”  and  “Health  and  Well-Being,”  as  required  by  Article  10.A.4.c.7.e.  of  the 
Personnel Manual. 
 
 
The applicant has failed to overcome the presumption of regularity accorded the 
disputed OER or to prove that it was adversely affected by a “misstatement of significant hard 
fact,” factors “which had no business being in the rating process,” or a prejudicial violation of a 
statute or regulation.13  The Board finds no grounds for expunging or making any changes to the 
disputed OER. 
 
 
The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  order  the  Coast  Guard  to  prepare  a  “Special 
OER” for him to provide “closure.”  Providing “closure” is not the purpose of the Officer Evalu-
ation  System,  and  the  applicant  has  not  shown  that  preparation  of  a  “Special  OER”  is  either 
required or warranted under the Personnel Manual. 
 

The applicant asked the Board to correct or expunge from his record the Page 7 
dated  November  2,  2004,  which  documents  his  first  “alcohol  incident.”    He  argued  that  it  is 
unfair and inaccurate  because it indicates that he was intoxicated and that he was arrested for 
“several alleged crimes” but does not provide “closure.”  The applicant submitted no evidence to 
prove that the Page 7 is inaccurate, and such military records are presumed by the Board to be 
                                                 
11 Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 
1979).   
12 Hary v. United States, 618 F.2d 704, 708 (Ct. Cl. 1980), cited in Lindsay v. United States, 295 F.3d 1252, 1259 
(Fed. Cir. 2002). 
13 Id. 

 

5. 

6. 

7. 

accurate until proved inaccurate.14  Under Article 20.A.2.d.1. of the Personnel Manual, an officer 
need not undergo a blood alcohol content test or breathalyzer test or be convicted of any crime to 
have his conduct be deemed an “alcohol incident.”  The Page 7 documenting the “alcohol inci-
dent”  was  prepared  in  accordance  with  Article  20.B.2.g.  of  the  manual,  and  it  succinctly 
describes how his conduct met the definition of an “alcohol incident” under Article 20.A.2.d.1. 
by  bringing  discredit  upon  the  Coast  Guard.    The  Board  finds  no  grounds  for  correcting  or 
expunging the Page 7 dated November 2, 2004. 

 
Accordingly, the applicant’s requests should be denied.  

 
8. 
 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 
 

                                                 
14 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b); Arens, 969 F.2d at 1037; Sanders, 594 F.2d at 813.   
 

 

ORDER 

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCGR, for correction of his military 

 
 

 
 

record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 

  

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
  

 
  

  

 

 
        
 Bruce D. Burkley 

 

 
 Robert F. Parker 

 

 

 
 
 Richard Walter