DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2009-175 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

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 upon receiving the applicant’s 
completed  application  on  June  19,  2009,  and  assigned  it  to  staff  member  J.  Andrews  to  pre-
pare 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  March  11,  2010,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  her  officer  evaluation  report  (OER)  for  the 
period May 1, 2005, to June 30, 2006, by adding her Commendation Medal as an attachment.  
She  stated  that  she  believes  the  omission  of  the  medal,  which  was  a  “departure  award”  she 
received upon her transfer from the unit, was accidental.  During the reporting period at issue, 
the applicant served as a xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. 

 
In support of her request, the applicant submitted a copy of the OER, which does not list 
any  attachments in block 2, where medals received during the evaluation period  are normally 
referenced as attachments to the OER.  She also submitted copies of the certificate and citation 
for  the  medal.    The  citation  states  that  the  medal  was  awarded  for  “outstanding  achievement 
while serving as the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx from August 2003 to 
August 2006 and the xxxxxxxxxxxxxx from October 2005 to August 2006.”  The certificate is 
dated July 28, 2006. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On September 30, 2009, the Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny relief and adopted the findings 
and analysis provided in a memorandum on the case prepared by the Coast Guard Personnel Ser-
vice Center (CGPSC). 

 
CGPSC noted that Article 10.A.4.c.3.a.1. of the Personnel Manual states the following: 
 
Personal  military  decorations  issued  in  accordance  with  Chapter  2  of  the  Medals  and  Awards 
Manual … may be attached to an OER for the period in which received even if the performance 
cited does not relate to the period.  Attach a copy of the award’s certificate and citation and list the 
description (e.g., CG Achievement Medal dated 31 January 2005) in the attachment line in section 
2 of the OER. [Emphasis added.] 

 
 
CGPSC stated that the evaluation period for the disputed OER ended on June 30, 2006, 
and the Commendation Medal was not awarded until July 28, 2006.  CGPSC stated that the date 
on the certificate “is used to determine the official date of the award.”  Therefore, the Commen-
dation Medal could not properly be attached to the disputed OER under Article 10.A.4.c.3.a.1. 
because it was awarded after the end of the evaluation period for that OER. 
 
CGPSC noted that the applicant could have the award attached to her subsequent OER.  
 
However, the award has already been entered in her record as a separate document and is thus 
“viewable by all promotion and selection boards and panels.”  CGPSC argued that attaching the 
award to an OER would result in a duplication of documents in the applicant’s record and would 
be “inconsistent with practice.”  CGPSC concluded that the applicant has not proved that the dis-
puted OER is erroneous or unjust and so no relief should be granted. 
 

RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On October 5, 2009, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast Guard 

and invited her to submit a response within 30 days.  No response was received. 
 

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: 
 

The Board has jurisdiction over this matter under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(a).  The appli-

The  applicant  alleged  that  the  Commendation  Medal  she  received  on  July  28, 
2006, should have been attached to and referenced in block 2 of her OER for the period May 1, 
2005, to June 30, 2006.  The Board begins its analysis in every case by presuming that the dis-
puted information in the applicant’s military record is correct as it appears in his record, and the 
applicant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the disputed infor-
mation is erroneous or unjust.1  Absent evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes that Coast 

cation was timely. 

1. 

 
2. 

                                                 
1 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)).   

Guard officials and other Government employees have carried out their duties “correctly, law-
fully, and in good faith.”2  

 
3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 

 
 

Under Article 10.A.4.c.3.a.1. of the Personnel Manual, personal military decora-
tions may be referenced as attachments on the OER for the period in which the decoration was 
received.  The certificate for the applicant’s Commendation Medal shows that it was awarded on 
July 28, 2006, which was after the end of the evaluation period for the disputed OER.  Therefore, 
the medal cannot properly be attached to that OER. 

As CGPSC stated, the medal could be attached to the applicant’s subsequent OER 
even  though  her  main  assignment  during  the  evaluation  period  for  the  subsequent  OER  was 
unrelated to the performance for which the medal was awarded.3  However, the applicant did not 
request the correction of that OER, and the Commendation Medal has already been entered in 
her record as a stand-alone document. 

Accordingly, no relief should be granted because the applicant has not proved that 

her military record contains any error or injustice. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

                                                 
2 Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 
1979). 
3 The applicant’s OER for the period July 1, 2006, to May 31, 2007, is a “duty under instruction” OER, which shows 
only  her  courses  and  grades  as  a  full-time  graduate  student  in  pursuit  of  a  Master’s  degree  in  xxxxxxx  at  the 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. 

The  application  of  LCDR  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  her 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 Lillian Cheng 

 

 
 George J. Jordan 

 

 

 
 
 Paul B. Oman 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

military record is denied.