DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for the Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
BCMR Docket No. 2009-217
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
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 upon receipt of
the applicant’s completed application and military records on July 31, 2009, and subsequently
prepared the final decision for the Board as required by 33 C.F.R. § 52.61(c).
who were designated to serve as the Board in this case.
This final decision, dated March 26, 2010, is signed by the three duly appointed members
APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS
The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record by including a copy of an
Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period February 1, 1998, to July 8, 1998, which he
submitted to the Board. The applicant stated that he just recently discovered that the OER was
not in his military record. He stated that it was signed by his supervisor and reporting officer but
was apparently lost between the unit and Personnel Service Center. He stated that rather than
contacting him about the lack of an OER for the period in question, someone attempted to
eliminate the OER gap in his record by making a pen and ink change to the beginning date of the
immediate subsequent OER. The applicant also requested to have the beginning date on the
immediate subsequent OER corrected.
The applicant submitted a copy of the OER that shows signatures by the supervisor and
the reporting officer, but no reviewer signature. He also submitted a copy of his immediate
subsequent OER showing a pen and ink change to the beginning date for that OER.
VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On December 18, 2009, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted
an advisory opinion recommending that the Board grant relief in accordance with the comments
from Commander, Personnel Service Command (PSC). PSC offered the following conclusions:
1. There was a failure by certain rating chain members to carry out their
responsibilities in submitting the applicant’s OER in accordance with the Coast
Guard Personnel Manual.
2. The OER for the period ending 08 July 1998 accurately documents the
applicant’s performance during the rating period . . .
*
*
*
4. The applicant has provided evidence that overcomes the presumption of
regularity with respect to the construction or submission of the disputed OER, and
there is [a] basis for including the OER in the applicant’s record.
5. Discerning the reviewer for this period of report in question is not likely; an
alternate reviewer should be considered.
PSC recommended that PSC serve as the reviewer for the OER and that the beginning
date for the immediate subsequent OER be amended.
PSC obtained a statement from the reporting officer for the OER in question. The
reporting officer stated that the copy of the OER provided to him matched his impression of the
applicant’s performance and he verified his signature as well as that of the supervisor. The
reporting officer supported the applicant’s request to have his copy of the OER included in the
applicant’s PDR.
APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On January 14, 2010, the Board received the applicant’s response to the views of the
Coast Guard and agreed with them.
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 admitted, and the Board finds that the reporting officer, who was also the CO
for the OER period under review, failed in his responsibility to ensure that the applicant receive a
fair, accurate, objective, and timely OER. The Board also agrees with the JAG that the
signatures on the copy of the OER for the period under review are probably genuine as verified
by the reporting officer. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to the relief recommended by the
Coast Guard, which is that a copy of the OER be included in his PDR, once it is signed by PSC
as the reviewer. The applicant is also entitled to have the beginning date of his immediate
subsequent OER (ending date January 31, 1999) corrected.
Accordingly, the applicant should be granted relief as recommended by the Coast
[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
3.
Guard.
The application of XXXXXXXXXXXXX, USCG, for correction of his military record is
granted as follows:
ORDER
The Coast Guard shall include a copy of the OER for the period February 1, 1998, to July
8, 1998, in his PDR once it is signed by PSC as the reviewer.
The Coast Guard shall correct the OER with an ending date of July 31, 1999, to show
July 9, 1998, as the beginning date for that OER evaluation period.
No other relief is granted.
Jeff M. Neurauter
Lynda K. Pilgrim
Kenneth Walton
CG | BCMR | Retirement Cases | 2009-089
Full Spouse and child SBP coverage was automatically elected for the applicant when the pertinent Coast Guard office did not receive an SBP election certificate from the applicant prior to her retirement on September 1, 2007. PSC recommended that the applicant’s record be corrected to show that prior to her retirement, on August 28, 2007, she completed PSC 4700 and elected, with the concurrence of her spouse, not to participate in SBP coverage. The applicant states that she declined...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2010-031
The applicant alleged that he learned that the members of the substitute rating chain were close associates of the CO of the cutter and “may have been involved in the effort to suppress information concerning the [migrant interdiction] incident.” The applicant alleged that the Reporting Officer and Reviewer who prepared the first disputed OER were biased against him because his father had threatened the Reviewer with legal action and had reported both officers to Headquarters officials in...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2010-265
2 Each Coast Guard officer is evaluated by a rating chain of three superior officers: a supervisor, who is normally the person to whom the officer reports on a daily basis; a reporting officer, who is normally the supervisor’s supervisor; and a reviewer, who reviews the OER to ensure consistency and compliance with regulations and who may add a page of comments to the OER. The applicant also alleged that when any officer reviews the summary of his numerical marks in the Coast Guard’s Direct...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2011-126
The applicant alleged that his CO was the subject of a command climate investigation he helped to instigate and that as a result of the investigation, she was relieved of command. It shows that the XO of the patrol boat, who assigned the first 13 performance marks as the appli- cant’s supervisor, was also a LTJG. Declaration of the XO as the Applicant’s Supervisor The XO, who is currently the CO of another patrol boat, stated that the marks assigned to the applicant in the disputed OER...
CG | BCMR | Alcohol and Drug Cases | 2011-209
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. by additional documentation as mentioned in ALCGPSC 041/11.”[2] The alcohol incident letter states the following: Per [the Personnel Manual] your public intoxication on the night of 31 October 2001 has constituted an alcohol incident. The application was timely.4 2.
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2010-092
Although, the marks, comments and comparison scale mark were substantially lower on the SOER than those on his previous OER, rather than stating in block 2 that the SOER was submitted to document performance notably different from the previous reporting period, the rating chain only cited the pertinent provision and then explained that the SOER was submitted because of a “loss of confidence in [the applicant’s] ability to effectively perform assigned duties” In this regard, the Board notes...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2012-032
states that a “derogatory OER” is any OER that contains at least one lowest possible mark of 1 in any performance category or a mark of “Unsatisfactory” on the Comparison Scale and documents “adverse performance or conduct which results in the removal of a member form his or her primary duty or position.” PSC stated that the disputed OERs were properly prepared as “derogatory” reports in accordance with these requirements and denied that the disputed OERs state that the applicant sexually...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2012-084
PSC believes the comment does not reflect the views of the reporting officer.” PSC stated that prior to evaluating the applicant in the disputed OER, the reporting officer was unduly influenced by the CO in completing three other OERs for officers at the unit. Reporting Officer’s Affidavit In addition to comments discussed in the advisory opinion, the reporting officer stated that he supported the applicant’s contention that his assigned marks in “speaking and listening” and “workplace...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2012-059
The JAG stated that based upon the investigation and letter of censure, the applicant (and not any other officer) was responsible for the conflict that existed in the workplace climate during the period covered by the disputed OER. The supervisor stated that the applicant was given a letter of censure by the Sector Commander, in which the applicant was told that “he would not currently be recommended for promotion to the next higher pay grade, but since he was at the mid-point of his...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2009-210
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. His OER for the period March 28, 2006, through April 30, 2007—his fifth and last from the FIST—shows that he attended 56 of 56 scheduled drills during this period and performed no active duty.4 The Chief of the Intelligence Branch, LCDR A, served as both the supervisor and reporting officer on the rating chain for this OER and assigned him...