DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2009-034 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXX 
   

 

 

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 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  June  18,  2009,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
First Disputed Officer Evaluation Report (OER) 
 
 
 The applicant asked the Board to correct his OER for the period May 1, 2005, to May 
31, 2006 (first disputed OER) by raising his comparison scale mark in block 91 to show that he 
was marked as an “excellent performer; give toughest, most challenging leadership assignments” 
rather than as a “good performer; give tough challenging assignments.”   The applicant alleged 
that when he was counseled on this OER by his reporting officer the block 9 mark was that of an 
“excellent performer,” but when he received the final OER, the mark had been lowered to that of 
a “good performer.”  The block 9 mark was the only significant change to the OER after he was 
counseled.  He submitted an email from the reporting officer for this OER, who stated, “I don’t 
remember marking the “middle” in block 9.  I thought it was to the right of that and that’s the 
story I’ll stick to.”  The applicant also argued that the block 9 mark is inconsistent with the 5.27 
average score of his performance marks and the highly flattering comments in the OER, such as:  
“Superior aviation skills . . .,” “Showcased superior piloting skills and keen judgment,” and “a 
strong and tactful leader, provided seasoned guidance and direction to senior officers new to the 
C130 during numerous operational training scenarios.”  
 

                                                 
1  The comparison scale of the OER is where the reporting officer compares the reported-on officer with others of 
the same grade that the reporting officer has known.  

 

Of the 18 performance dimensions on the first disputed OER, the applicant received two 
marks of 4, ten marks of 5, five marks of 6, and one mark of 7 (on a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 being 
the  highest).    In  block  10  where  the  reporting  officer  described  the  applicant’s  potential  to 
assume greater leadership roles and responsibilities, the reporting officer wrote the following: 

 
A  highly  talented  aviator  and  gifted  educator  whose  maturity,  judgment  and 
attention  to  detail  led  to  a  well  deserved  assignment  as  C-130  Standardization 
Officer.  [The applicant] continually displays care for members of this [command] 
and the local community, demonstrated an undying desire to improve himself & 
those  around  him.      Gifted  pilot,  uncommon  devotion  to  raising  own  &  others 
aviation professionalism.   Instructor Pilot and Safety  Officer program potential.  
Possesses  the  intellectual  ability  &  self  discipline  to  excel  in  a  post-graduate 
program.  Is highly recommended for the same.  Ready for positions of greater 
responsibility.  My highest recommendation for promotion with peers.   

  
Second and Third Disputed OERs 
 
The applicant also requested that the mark of 4 in the work-place climate dimension2 be 
 
raised  from  4  to  5  on  the  OER  for  the  period  from  June  1,  2006  to  May  11,  2007  (second 
disputed  OER)  and  on  the  OER  for  the  period  from  May  12,  2007  to  May  31,  2008  (third 
disputed OER).  The applicant stated that he was given a mark of 5 in the workplace climate 
dimension on the earlier first disputed OER, but the mark in this category was lowered in the 
subsequent  second  and  third  disputed  OERs.    He  argued  there  are  no  comments  or 
documentation to support the 4 in this category and that strong statements about his leadership 
and potential in the comment sections of blocks 5 and 10 of the second and third disputed OERs 
support a mark higher than 4.  The applicant stated that his supervisor for the second disputed 
OER told him that a change from 5 to 4 is not regression and that it was difficult to get a right of 
center mark in that dimension, except for the civil rights officer.  However, the applicant noted 
that his two predecessors, who were flight examiners and not civil rights officers, received marks 
of 5 or higher in workplace climate.   
 
 
The  applicant  argued  that  the  traits  he  was  required  to  demonstrate  in  obtaining  his 
qualification  as  an  Instructor  Pilot  and  a  C130  Flight  Examiner,  the  highest  position  for  an 
aviator, are evidence that he should not have been given a 4 in workplace climate.  In this regard, 
he stated that to obtain qualification as an Instructor Pilot, he had to demonstrate patience, tact, 
understanding, a desire to instruct others, the ability to obtain the trust of others, and the respect 
of  others.   As  a  Flight  Examiner,  he  was  required  to  communicate,  mentor,  and  inspire  those 
around  him.    He  stated  that  he  achieved  the  highest  qualification  possible  for  an  aviator  as  a 
flight examiner during the period covered by the second and third disputed OERs, which is a feat 
that is accomplished by less than 10% of Coast Guard aviators.    
 
Failure of Selection for Promotion to Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) 
 

                                                 
2      This  dimension  in  the  supervisor’s  portion  of  the  OER  evaluates  an  officer’s  “ability  to  value  individual 
differences and promote an environment of involvement, innovation, open communication, and respect.” 

The applicant requested that his failure of selection before the promotion year (PY) 2009 
LCDR selection board be removed from his record.  The applicant argued that because he has 
exceeded the personal, professional and leaderships guidance set forth by the Commandant and 
by the Personnel Manual for selecting officers from O-1 through O-4 to the next higher grade, 
senior officers who reviewed his military record were of the opinion that the marks under review 
were the likely causal factor for his non-selection for promotion to LCDR.  He argued that if the 
Board found the marks to be erroneous that his failure of selection be removed.   
 
Reserve Retirement Points 
 

The applicant also requested that his Reserve Retirement Point statements be removed 
from his record when reviewed by future selection boards.  Although he is a now an officer in the 
regular Coast Guard, he believes the reserve documents could confuse a selection board as to his 
current active duty status, especially since they occupy the last six pages in his electronic record  
and are the documents last seen by the selection board members upon their initial review of his 
record.   
 
  

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 

On April 15, 2009, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted a 
memorandum from the Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC) as the advisory 
opinion.  CGPC recommended that the application be denied.   
 
 
With respect to the first disputed OER regarding the applicant’s allegation that he should 
have  been  marked  as  an  “excellent  performer”  on  the  comparison  scale,  CGPC  submitted 
statements from the rating chain, who offered the following, in pertinent part. 
 

1.  The supervisor for the first disputed OER stated that based upon his observation of the 
applicant’s superior performance during the period in question, he should have been marked as 
an “Excellent performer” in block 9, which is the mark he recommended in his evaluation input.  
He  stated  that  he  was  neither  consulted  not  given  any  indication  that  the  block  9  mark  he 
recommended would be lowered to “good performer.” 
 

2.  The reporting officer for the evaluation, and the individual responsible for assigning 
the mark, stated in contrast to the applicant’s statement, OER counseling would have been done 
only upon completion of the OER process and not before the reviewing officer signed the OER.  
He  stated  therefore,  he  believes  that  he  selected  “good  performer”  rather  than  “excellent 
performer” to describe the applicant.  He stated that he does not recall the specifics of why he 
marked the applicant as a good performer but he remembers that the applicant’s performance was 
commendable.  He remembers the applicant offering to help others with their work assignments 
and that he was always focused on his primary and collateral duties.  The reporting officer stated 
that  the  mark  of  “good  performer”  may  have  been  an  error.    “Given  the  opportunity  today,  I 
would select “Excellent” as my overall evaluation mark.   
 

3.    The  reviewer  wrote  that  he  had  the  opportunity  to  observe  the  applicant’s 
performance.  He stated that as the reviewer, he generally did not change evaluation marks and 

 

certainly would not have changed an evaluation mark without conferring with the supervisor or 
reporting officer. The reviewer stated that although he had no evidence that he changed the block 
9 mark, he clearly made minor edits to the text of the OER.  He stated that it is possible that the 
mark  was  inadvertently  changed  and  not  caught  upon  final  review.    He  noted  that  OERs  are 
edited  on  a  screen  and  he  has  known  marks  to  be  inadvertently  changed  using  the  on-screen 
process. He stated that at the time he only checked to ensure that his edits were corrected on the 
OER, he did not check the entire OER for inadvertent changes.  He recommended “that this OER 
be  changed  to  reflect  a  [the  higher  mark]  in  block  9  comparison  scale  based  on  a  likely 
administrative error.” 
 
 
the block 9 mark, CGPC offered the following: 
 

In response to the declarations from the rating chain for the disputed OER with respect to 

The rating chain for the [disputed] OER provided declarations in which there is a 
general consensus that the Reported-on Officer’s performance did merit a mark of 
“excellent” in their individual perspective views for the mark in the comparison 
scale dimension.  However, even though the views of the supervisor and reviewer 
support a change in the mark, it is solely the reporting officer who assigns this 
mark.  The criteria for this is that he must choose the one mark that most closely 
reflects the reporting officer’s  ranking of the reported-on officer, relative to all 
other officers of the same grade the reporting officer has known.  The applicant 
has not provided specific evidence to dispute that the mark was inaccurate at the 
time the reporting officer made this judgment, and [he] did not take steps to have 
the  record  corrected  prior  to  his  non-selection.    In  considering  the  reporting 
officer’s statement in his declaration that given the opportunity today he would 
change  the  mark,  consideration  must  be  given  to  this  mark’s  relative  ranking 
criteria which required a reporting officer to make a judgment this is subject to 
change over time, as the reporting officer increases the number of officers he has 
known in a particular grade. 
 
Based  on  the  record  and  [the  reporting  officer’s]  declaration,  it  appears  he 
fulfilled  his  responsibilities  as  the  applicant’s  reporting  officer  and  provided  an 
accurate  and  fair  comparison  scale  [mark]  of  the  applicant  at  the  time  of  the 
report.     

 
 
With  respect  to  the  mark  of  4  in  the  workplace  climate  dimension  in  the  supervisor’s 
portion of the second and third disputed OERs, CGPC obtained a statement from the supervisor 
for the second disputed OER and from the supervisor and reporting officer of the third disputed 
OER.     
 
 
1.    The  supervisor  for  the  second  disputed  OER  wrote  that  he  did  not  remember  the 
specifics of the OER, but based upon his review of the available documentation, he concluded:  
“For  the  dimension  of  Workplace  Climate  (5e),  my  evaluation  of  the  performance  of  [the 
applicant]  was  that  of  a  4.”    His  performance  with  regard  to  his  ability  to  value  individual 
differences and promote an environment of involvement, innovation, open communication and 
respect, was at the high level of performance expected of all Coast Guard officers.   

 

 
 
2.  The supervisor for the third disputed OER stated that he could not recall the specific 
details of the applicant’s OER for the period under review.  He concluded:  “For the dimension of 
Workplace Climate (5e) my evaluation of the performance of [the applicant] was a 4.  This mark 
was consistent with my observation of [the applicant’s] performance throughout the period.”  
 
 
3.    The  reporting  officer  for  the  third  disputed  OER  wrote  that  he  “found  that  the 
supervisor’s mark of 4 in Workplace Climate . . . was consistent with the input contained within 
the OER routing folder, the [supervisor’s] comments in the ‘leadership skills’ text block and my 
direct observations.”   
 
 
CGPC did not recommend any relief with respect to raising the mark in the Workplace 
Climate categories of the second and third disputed OERs.   CGPC stated that the marks appear 
to  be  accurate  and  that  the  pertinent  members  of  the  rating  chain  for  the  second  and  third 
disputed OERs reaffirmed the marks.  CGPC also noted that the applicant failed to object to the 
marks at the time they were given by filing a reply to the OERs.   
 
 
With  respect  to  his  record  containing  his  earlier  reserve  retirement  points  statements, 
CGPC stated that boards and panels must consider an officer’s entire record, and Commandant 
Instruction 1401.2 list the documents that may be viewed by  a selection and the Coast Guard 
Reserve Annual/Term Point States is included.   
 
 
CGPC stated that the applicant’s failure of selection before the PY 2009 LCDR selection 
board  should  not  be  voided.    CGPC  stated  that  selection  board  members  are  charged  with 
reviewing the  entirety of an officer’s record  as  directed  by the  convening precept in selecting 
those individuals they feel are best-qualified.  CGPC stated that the applicant has not provided 
convincing evidence that would rebut the position he would otherwise not have been selected.   
 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  May  18,  2009,  the  Board  received  the  applicant’s  reply  to  the  views  of  the  Coast 

 
 
Guard.3  He disagreed with them.   
 

The  applicant  stated  that  according  to Article  14.A.4.d.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  the 
immediate previous six years of service in his current grade is considered the most significant.  
He  argued  that  if  the  previous  six  years  is  the  most  significant,  placing  the  retirement  point 
statements immediately after his most recent OER might cause a selection board to believe it was 
within  the  previous  six  years  and  that  he  was  a  reservist.    He  stated  that  since  the  reserve 

                                                 
3   The applicant raised two new issued in his reply to the views of the Coast Guard.  They are his allegation that his 
ensign  OERs  were  not  masked  from  the  view  of  the  2009  LCDR  selection  board  as  required  by  COMDTINST 
1410.2 § 7.b.; and his allegation that the description of his duties in block 2 of the third disputed OER is inaccurate 
and understates the full scope of his duties.  These two issued will not be addressed in this decision because the 
Coast Guard has not had an opportunity to comment on them.  The applicant may file a new application with the 
Board presenting the two new issues.   

 

retirement point statements are more than six years old and have no bearing on his selection for 
LCDR they should be removed from the record that will be reviewed by the selection board.   
 
 
On the issue of the mark of 4 in workplace climate, the applicant stated that the rating 
chain members for the second and third disputed OERs did not give a reason for his regression 
from  the  mark  of  5  he  received  on  the  first  disputed  OER  in  this  area,  particularly  when  his 
marks increased in all other areas.  He cited comments in the second and third disputed OERs 
that he believes proves that he should have had a higher mark in this dimension.   
 
 
With respect to the Coast Guard’s comments about his block 9 mark on the first disputed 
OER, the applicant stated that the comment that he has provided no evidence that the mark is 
inaccurate is incorrect. In this regard, he stated that he submitted his supervisor’s draft OER and 
the reporting officer’s draft OER showing that he had been marked as a “excellent performer.”  
The  applicant  erroneously  noted  that  the  reporting  officer  wrote  in  his  declaration  that  he 
counseled the applicant on an OER that had not been fully completed and signed by reviewer.  
(The  reporting  officer  actually  stated  in  his  declaration  “OER  counseling  was  done  upon 
completion of the OER process, not before the Reviewing Officer signed the document; therefore 
I have to believe I selected “Good” vice Excellent.”)  The applicant also noted, as he did in his 
application  that  the  reporting  officer  wrote  in  an  email  that  he  thought  he  had  marked  the 
applicant right of center and that he would stick to that belief.  In addition, the applicant noted 
that the reporting officer subsequently stated that given the opportunity today, he would mark the 
applicant as “excellent” on block 9.  The applicant stated that all three officers in his rating chain 
for the first disputed OER attested that his performance met the “excellent” standard on block 9.  
Therefore,  he  argued  there  should  be  no  argument  against  changing  the  mark  to  “excellent 
performer . . .” 
 
With respect to his failure of selection for promotion to LCDR, the applicant questioned how he 
was not among the best qualified if he had attained the highest aviator qualification as mentioned 
in the description of his duties on the second and third disputed OERs.  He stated that the Coast 
Guard did not address this contention in its response.  He stated that he did not challenge the 
disputed OERs because he believed what his supervisors and rating chains had been saying for 
his  entire  career:  “that  [his]  progression  was  normal,  [his]  performance  excellent,  and  there 
would be no reason for [him] not to promote.”  He referred to many complimentary comments in 
his OERs, endorsement to an extension request, and on a plaque given to him upon his departure 
as support that he should have been selected for LCDR and that something inappropriate must 
have  occurred  since  he  was  not  selected.    The  applicant  also  noted  that  he  was  assigned  to 
independent duty as the Coast Guard’s “C130 Standardization Team Liaison to the United States 
Air Force.”  The applicant concluded his statement with the following: 
 

I  believe  there  are  mistakes  and  injustices  in  my  record.    I  believe  that  the 
inclusion of certain documents, especially due to their chronological placement in 
the  record  could  have,  and  will  in  the  future,  confuse/negatively  influence 
promotion  board  members.    Lastly,  I  believe  that  because  of  the  discrepancies 
noted . . .  my record was not evaluated fairly, discounted, or simply not viewed 
by the PY [2009] promotion board.     
 

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 first issue is whether the block 9 comparison scale mark on the first disputed OER 
is in error.  There are seven rating choices on the comparison scale.  They range from highest to 
lowest,  as  follows:  “Best  Officer  of  this  grade”;    “Strongly  recommended  for  accelerated 
promotion”; “Excellent performer; give toughest and most challenging leadership assignments”; 
“good  performer;  give  tough,  challenging  assignments”;  ‘Fair  performer;  recommended  for 
increased 
limited  potential”;  and  “Performance 
unsatisfactory for grade or billet.”  The applicant was rated as a “strong performer.” 
 

responsibility”;  “Marginal  performer; 

3.  With respect to the comparison scale of the OER, Article 10.A.4.c.8.a.& d. state as 

 

 

follows: 
 

The reporting officer shall fill in the circle that most closely reflects the Reporting 
Officer’s ranking of the Reported-on Officer relative to all other officers of the 
same grade the Reporting Officer has known.  NOTE:  this section represents a 
relative  ranking  of  the  Reported-on  Officer,  not  necessarily  a  trend  of 
performance.    Thus,  from  period  to  period,  an  officer  could  improve  in 
performance but drop a category. [Article 10.A.4.c.8.a.] 
 
No specific comments are required to support the Reporting Officer’s judgment in 
this  section.    However,  a  mark  other  than  in  the  center  three  circles  is 
strengthened  considerably  if  there  are  comments  in  the  report  from  which  one 
could  reasonable  draw  a  conclusion  why  this  particular  officer  has  been 
indentified as different from the majority of this grade.  [Article 10.A.4.c.8.d.] 

4.    In  each  case,  the  Board  presumes  that  Coast  Guard  officials  have  carried  out  their 
duties “correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.” Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. 
Cir.  1992);  Sanders  v.  United  States,  594  F.2d  804,  813  (Ct.  Cl.  1979).    The  presumption  is 
rebutted by “clear, cogent, and convincing evidence to the contrary.”  See Muse v. United States, 
21 Cl. Ct. 592 (1990).  See also decision of the Deputy General Counsel in BCMR No. 2000-
037.  
 

5.    With  respect  to  the  accuracy  of  the  block  9  comparison  scale  mark,  the  applicant 
offered  statements  from  the  rating  chain.     Although  the  supervisor  had  no  responsibility  for 
rating the applicant on block 9, he stated that he recommended that the reporting officer mark the 
applicant  as  an  “excellent  performer.”    The  reporting  officer  was  free  to  accept  or  reject  the 
supervisor’s recommendation.  As evidenced by the disputed OER, the reporting officer rejected 
the  supervisor’s  recommendation  and  marked  the  applicant  as  a  ”good  performer.”      The 

 

supervisor’s opinion does not prove that the reporting officer’s judgment and evaluation of the 
applicant as a “good performer” was inaccurate.     

 
6.  Additionally, the reviewer’s statement suggested that the OER was presented to him 
for review with the applicant marked as a “good performer” because it was not his practice to 
change  evaluation  marks,  and  if  he  had  done  so  he  would  have  conferred  with  the  reporting 
officer.  There  is  no  evidence  of  any  consultation  between  the  reporting  officer  and  reviewer 
about the comparison scale mark.   Although the reviewer indicated that the block 9 comparison 
scale mark was likely an administrative error due to an inadvertent key stroke, he never stated 
that the mark of “good performer” in block 9 of the disputed OER was inaccurate even though he 
stated  that  he  had  an  opportunity  to  observe  the  applicant’s  performance.    The  reviewer’s 
statement is speculative and does not persuade the Board that the mark is erroneous.   

 
7.   The reporting officer’s statement is the most relevant because it was his responsibility 
to evaluate and rate the applicant on the block 9 comparison scale.  However, his statement is not 
a definite, clear, cogent, and convincing piece of evidence. In this regard, he could not remember 
the specifics of the OER, but after reviewing the OER recently he believes that he must have 
marked  the  applicant  in  the  “good  performer  category”  on  the  comparison  scale.    More 
importantly, the reporting officer never stated that the mark was a mistake, but rather he stated 
that it “may have been an error.”  The reporting officer never explained how any such alleged 
possible error could have occurred.  The reporting officer’s statement is weak and offers only 
conjecture about the accuracy of the comparison scale mark and is therefore not persuasive to the 
Board.   
 

if 

8.  The Board is further persuaded as to the accuracy of the disputed mark because of the 
applicant’s behavior and that of the rating chain.  In this regard, the applicant admitted that he 
knew that he had received a mark of “good performer” rather than “excellent performer” on the 
comparison scale when he received the finalized OER and apparently accepted it until he was not 
selected for promotion to LCDR.  Further, both the reporting officer and the reviewer were aware 
that the applicant had been marked as a good performer at the time the OER was prepared, even 
though  now  they  speculate  that  it  may  have  been  an  error.    It  appears  to  the  Board  that  the 
alleged  administrative  error, 
it  existed,  should  have  been  caught  and  corrected 
contemporaneously with the OER process.   

 
9.  Finally, with respect to the first disputed OER, the Board finds that the comments and 
marks  in  the  other  categories  of  the  OER  are  not  inconsistent  with  the  mark  of  “strong 
performer”  on  the  comparison  scale.    Nor  is  a  mark  in  block  9  dependent  on  the  other  OER 
marks.  Article 10.A.4.c.8.a. of the Personnel Manual states that the reporting officer shall fill in 
the circle that most closely reflects the Reporting Officer’s ranking of the Reported-on Officer 
relative to all other officers of the same grade the Reporting Officer has known.  The applicant’s 
argument that the block 9 mark is inconsistent with other OER marks is not persuasive.   
 

10.  The applicant has also failed to prove that the mark of 4 in workplace climate on the 
second and third disputed OERs should be raised to 5.  The supervisors for the second and third 
disputed OERs indicated that the mark of 4 in Workplace climate was  correct.  The applicant 
argued that there is no explanation why he received a 4 on the second and third disputed OERs, 

when he 5 on the earlier first disputed OER.   He further argued that the positive comments about 
his  leadership  and  potential  on  the  second  and  third  disputed  OERs  support  a  higher  mark. 
However, the mark in workplace climate is dependent on how the applicant measures up to the 
predetermined  standard  for  workplace  climate  and  not  on  the  marks  he  received  in  other 
evaluation  categories.    Article10.A.4.c.4.d.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  for  each 
evaluation area, the supervisor shall . . . carefully read the standards and compare the reported-on 
officer’s  performance  to  the  level  of  performance  described  by  the  standards.”    Workplace 
climate standard are different from those of leadership and potential.  Further, the applicant fails 
to mention that he had new supervisors for the second and third disputed OERs who judged his 
performance in this category as rating a mark of 4. The fact that he had a higher mark by an 
earlier supervisor does not mean that the marks in workplace climate on the second and third 
disputed OERs by different supervisors are erroneous; nor does the fact that applicant disagrees 
with the marks assigned by his supervisors prove the disputed marks are erroneous.  The marks 
represent the judgment of the rating chain and they have reaffirmed the accuracy of the marks.   
The  applicant  has  not  provided  evidence  that  rebuts  the  accuracy  of  the  4s  he  received  in 
workplace climate on the second and third disputed OERs.     

 
11.  The applicant’s argument that his earlier reserve retirement point statements should 
be  temporarily  removed  from  his  record  so  that  they  are  not  viewed  by  a  selection  board  is 
without  merit.    Enclosure  (1)  to  COMDTINST  1410.2  list  “CG  Reserve  Annual/Term  Point 
Statement” as documents permitted to be viewed by an ADPL selection board.  Therefore, the 
Coast  Guard  did  not  commit  an  error  by  maintaining  them  in  the  applicant’s  record  that  was 
reviewed  by  the  LCDR  selection  board.    The  applicant’s  argument  that  the  members  of  the 
selection board could have been confused as to whether he was a regular Coast Guard officer 
because  the  retirement  points  statements  followed  his  most  recent  OER  is  speculation.  
Article14.A.4.d. of the Personnel Manual states that the six years of immediate previous service 
or  all  service  in  the  present  grade,  whichever  is  greater  is  most  significant.    However  this 
provision  does  not  require  removal  of  the  retirements  points  statements.      The  applicant  has 
failed to prove an error or injustice with respect to the retirement points statements.   

 
12.  Accordingly, the applicant’s requests should be denied.   

 

 
 
 
 
 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
        
 Bruce D. Burkley 

The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his  military  record  is 
denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 Richard Walter 

 
 
  

 

 
 Robert F. Parker