DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2010-038 
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  application  upon 
receipt  of  a  completed  application  on  November  19,  2009,  and  subsequently  prepared  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  August  12,  2010,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST  

 
 The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  military  record  by  removing  two  officer 
 
evaluation reports (OERs) for the period July 1, 2002 to January 31, 2003 (first disputed OER) 
and from February 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004 (second disputed OER) and by replacing them with  
reports prepared for continuity purposes only.  The applicant asked to be promoted to the rank of 
lieutenant  commander  (LCDR).    In  this  regard,  the  applicant  failed  to  be  selected  for  LCDR 
before the promotion year (PY) 2009 and PY 2010 LCDR selection boards. He also requested to 
be  reimbursed  for  tuition  costs  for  which  he  claimed  he  was  ineligible  due  to  his  mandatory 
retirement, resulting from having twice failed of selection for promotion to the next higher grade.  
The applicant was involuntarily retired on June 30, 2010. 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant  received  the  first  disputed  OER  while  assigned  as  Chief,  Planning  and 
Coordination  Branch  for  a  Marine  Safety  Office  (MSO)  and  he  received  the  second  disputed 
OER  while  assigned  to  duty  as  the  1ST  Tour  Marine  Instructor  at  the  same  command.    The 
supervisor and reporting officer were different for each OER but the reviewer was the same. 
 

 

 

The applicant argued that under Article 10.A.2.g.b of the Personnel Manual the reporting 
  
officers  were  disqualified  from  his  rating  chain  because  they  could  not  objectively  and  fairly 
evaluate him.1  
 
First Disputed OER 
 

The  applicant  alleged  that  the  reporting  officer  for  the  first  disputed  OER  was  biased, 
prejudiced, and hostile towards him, which led the reporting officer to write unfair and damaging 
comments  in  the  OER.    The  applicant  contended  that  the  reporting  officer’s  (LCDR  R’s) 
animosity toward him was triggered when he told LCDR R that his order for members to keep a 
daily  log  was  a  burden  since  it  took  a  good  part  of  the  day  to  constantly  update  the  log.  
According  to  the  applicant,  from  that  time  on,  LCDR  R  constantly  mistreated  him  and 
questioned  everything  he  did,  even  in  front  of  enlisted  members.    The  applicant  stated  that 
LCDR  R  never  gave  him  any  positive  feedback  and  frequently  forced  him  to  stay  after  hours 
“just in case [LCDR R] needs you.”  The applicant also complained that when his nephew was 
murdered,  no  one  from  the  command  called  to  offer  condolences;  nor  did  anyone  from  the 
command call to check up on him and his family after they were robbed at gunpoint. 
 
The applicant offered several examples of interactions between him and LCDR R that he 
 
considered  to  be  humiliating.    In  one  example,  the  applicant  stated  that  LCDR  R  knew  the 
applicant  was  scheduled  to  participate  in  a  specific  meeting,  but  when  the  applicant  returned 
from that meeting, LCDR R asked him how long did the meeting take and why he was not in a 
specific training course that  LCDR  R had organized and  attended.  The applicant  stated that in 
another  incident,  LCDR  R  told  him  in  Spanish  that  he  was  very  sad  that  the  applicant  had 
submitted a paper to transfer to the Inspections Department and that they would talk later.  The 
applicant stated that he felt threatened by LCDR R’s remarks and that LCDR R retaliated against 
him for requesting a transfer by treating him more poorly.  
 
 
The  applicant  stated  from  about  October  2002  to  March  2003,  he  suffered  from  heart 
palpitations  and  anxiety  and  panic  attacks,  for  which  he  was  occasionally  placed  in  a  “sick  in 
quarters” status.  He stated that on one particular day when he was driving the CO and LCDR R 
to  a  meeting,  he  began  to  suffer  heart  palpitations.    He  stated  that  when  he  told  the  CO  and 
LCDR R that he needed to stop by the clinic, LCDR R laughed and said in a sarcastic manner:  
“[The applicant’s name] before you die, even if it is on your last breath I need you to call.”  The 
applicant stated that he felt humiliated and very upset.   
 
The  applicant  stated  that  when  he  moved  to  the  Vessel  Inspection  Department,  he  was 
 
still  required  to  work  as  a  command  duty  officer,  which  was  contrary  to  the  manner  in  which 
every  other  officer  was  treated  who  went  to  the  Vessel  Inspection  Department  before  him.  
According to the applicant, the CDO duty plus his vessel inspection duty made the qualification 
process much harder.  
 

                                                 
1 This provision states that disqualified includes “relief for cause due to misconduct or unsatisfactory performance, 
being an interested party to an investigation or court of inquiry, or any other situation in which a personal interest or 
conflict on the part of the . . . reporting officer . . . raises a substantial question as to whether the reported officer will 
receive a fair, accurate evaluation.” 

 

 

The  applicant  offered  statements  from  several  individuals  to  support  his  overall 
contention that the reporting officer was prejudiced against him and therefore, unable to evaluate 
him in an objective and fair manner.  The statements are summarized below: 
 

1.    BMC  R  was  stationed  at  the  applicant’s  unit  from  2002  to  2004  and  was  under  the 
leadership  of  LCDR  R  in  the  Port  Operations  Department.    BMC  R  claimed  that  LCDR  R’s 
leadership style was poor and that it induced unnecessary work stress within the Port Operations 
Department.   The  BMC  stated  that  LCDR  R  would  criticize  personnel  that  he  did  not  like.    In 
this regard, BMC R wrote the following: 
 

In my presence [LCDR R] complained about [the applicant] and a few other petty 
officers independently of who was present.  He complained about [the applicant’s] 
health  issues  in  front  of  me  and  other  junior  petty  officers  displaying  complete 
disregard of work ethics . . .  The animosity displayed by LCDR [R] toward [the 
applicant]  was  such  that  a  fellow  CPO  [chief  petty  officer]  and  [a]  petty  officer 
asked  me  if  I  knew  the  reason  for  the  personal  mistreatment  received  by  [the 
applicant]  from  LCDR  [R].        I  personally  noticed  how  LCDR  [R’s]  expression 
changed  from  a  friendly  to  a  serious  facial  expression  when  [the  applicant] 
approached. 
 
The  last  time  LCDR  [R]  made  a  comment  in  regard  to  [the  applicant]  he  called 
him “good for nothing  officer” (in Spanish) to  two other Spanish  speaking petty 
officers  who  I  was  talking  to  and  LCDR  [R]  got  involved  in  the  conversation.  
[The applicant] had just gotten back from a morning brief at the Sector . . . Ops 
Center at that moment and I got so upset and tired of his attitude that I told him to 
stop  making  negative  comments  about  the  LT,  or  anyone  else  he  didn’t  like, 
especially in front of others.  After that he never made any comments in regard [to 
the applicant].     

 
2.  MSTC M wrote that he was assigned to the MSO from December 1999 to July 2006 
 
and worked for LCDR R from July 2002 to September 2004.  He stated that he was a witness to 
many  derogatory  statements  about  Puerto  Ricans  by  individuals  inside  and  outside  the  unit.  
Although  LCDR  R  did  not  initiate  any  of  these  comments,  he  did  not  intervene  or  take  any 
corrective action against individuals who made such comments.   
 
 
3.   LCDR K wrote that she was stationed with the applicant from 2002 to 2003 and that 
LCDR R was their supervisor.  She stated that the applicant mentioned to her that he felt singled 
out  by  LCDR  R  and  that  he  was  treated  unfairly.    She  stated  that  the  applicant  told  her  of  a 
shouting match that he had with LCDR R and that the applicant’s request for a transfer to another 
department  had  been  turned  down.    She  stated  there  was  a  sense  of  negativism  and  pessimism 
among the junior officers.   
 
 
4.  LCDR P wrote that he reported to the MSO on July 1, 2003 and that LCDR R was his 
reporting  officer.    He  stated  that  during  his  first  few  months  in  the  department,  he  noticed 
significant  strife  between  LCDR  R  and  the  applicant.    He  stated  that  he  was  not  aware  of  the 
details between the two but the applicant would occasionally return to his desk (next to  LCDR 

 

 

P’s)  very  discouraged  and  depressed  because  of  his  interactions  with  LCDR  R.    He  stated  that 
LCDR R mentioned that the applicant had some medical issues, but did not provide any details.  
LCDR  P  wrote  that  while  the  applicant  worked  next  to  him,  he  was  definitely  anxious  when 
LCDR R was present in the office.  
 
 
5.  LCDR B wrote that he worked in the Port Operations Department from June 2003 to 
June 2004.  He stated that the department appeared to be in a state of transition, and with all of 
the  change  there  were  some  tensions  within  the  department.      He  stated  on  one  occasion,  he 
witnessed  the  division  chief  (LCDR  R)  approach  the  applicant  and  within  a  matter  of  minutes 
their conversation went from a normal level of discussion to a shouting match.  He stated that he 
did  not  know  the  specifics  that  led  to  the  outburst,  but  apparently  those  issues  were  never 
resolved because the relationship remained strained and broken.     
 
 
6.  LT N wrote that he was stationed at the same unit as the applicant from July 2002 to 
May 2005.  He stated that he recalled the Chief of Port Operations, CDR E (reporting officer for 
second disputed OER) making derogatory comments and making fun of the applicant’s medical 
condition, such as saying the applicant was soft and incompetent. 
 
7.  LT O wrote that he served with the applicant’s unit from March 2003 to March 2006 
 
and  worked  directly  for  CDR  E.    He  stated  that  on  several  occasions  CDR  E  made  degrading 
public  remarks  in  the  bull  pen  about  the  applicant’s  medical  condition  that  left  the  applicant 
demoralized.   
 
 
2006.  He questioned the legitimacy of LCDR R’s container inspector qualification.     
 
  
On the first disputed OER, the applicant received marks of mostly 5s in the performance 
dimensions.    He  received  marks  of  4  in  the  evaluations  and  initiative  categories,  as  well  as  a 
mark in the fourth block (one of the many professionals who form the majority of this group) on 
the comparison scale in block 9.  As stated earlier, the applicant seems most concerned with the 
mark of 4 in initiative and the mark in the middle block on the comparison scale in the reporting 
officer’s portion of the OER, as well as the following reporting officer’s comments in blocks 7 & 
8.  
 
 
 

8.  MST2 T wrote that he was stationed at the applicant’s unit from January 2004 to June 

The reporting officer wrote the following in block 7 of the first disputed OER: 

ROO  [reported-on  officer]  continues  growth  as  M[arine]  Professional.    Had 
adapted  to  new  RO  [reporting  officer]  style;  ROO  given  greater  autonomy  on 
long-term comprehensive projects & has steadily shown increasing perseverance.  
I’m  confident  that,  with  appropriate  tasking,  ROO  has  mix  of  experience  and 
dedication  to  realize  missions  and  provide  future  CG  dividends.    ROO 
consistently  gave  superiors  good  counsel.    His  efforts  were  instrumental  in 
carrying  out  many  COTP  missions  successfully  during  this  very  high  op-tempo 
period.   

  

 

 

The applicant specifically complained about the following comments quoted in the above 

 
paragraph: 
 
Comment:  “Had adapted to new RO [reporting officer] style; ROO given greater autonomy on 
long-term comprehensive projects & has steadily shown increasing perseverance.”  The applicant 
stated that the comment is unfair and damaging because it portrays him as an officer in constant 
need of direction.  He  argued that  his  previous OERs  that evaluated him in  the same job  show 
that he was doing excellent work. He also argued that the comment conflicted with statements in 
block 8 that he “undertook various taskings including; made contacts w/local agencies for input 
to WMD . . . plan & update of Marine Firefighting plan; plan and update/completed increasing 
response capability . . .”   
 
Comment:    “I’m  confident  that,  with  appropriate  tasking,  ROO  has  mix  of  experience  and 
dedication to realize missions and provide future CG dividends.”  The applicant contended that 
this  comment  is  inaccurate,  unfair  and  unjust  because  it  gives  the  impression  that  he  was  not 
productive during the marking period.  The applicant stated that the comment is contradicted by 
the  last  sentence  in  that  paragraph  which  stated:  “His  efforts  were  instrumental  in  carrying  out 
many COTP missions successfully during this very high op-tempo period.”  The applicant  also 
argued  that  the  challenged  comment  is  rebutted by  this  comment  in  block  10  (potential)  of  the 
OER:  “Extremely capable officer & marine safety professional.  [Member] is a valuable asset & 
has performed well during this period particularly during issues where a calm demeanor & well 
rounded experience is required.”   
 
 
The applicant  alleged that  the mark of 4 in  the initiative dimension of the Personal  and 
Professional  Qualities  area  of  the  first  disputed  OER  is  inconsistent  with  the  supporting 
comments.  He restated his argument that LCDR R was not qualified to evaluate him fairly and 
objectively because of his animosity and prejudice toward the applicant.    The reporting officer 
wrote comments such as the following in the section 8 comments block: 
 

Undertook various taskings including made contact w/local agencies for input to 
WMD  plan  &  update  of  Marine  Firefighting  plan;  .  .  .  Wrote  SOP  for  MSO 
OpCen liaison during MARSEC II op. SOP established policy and proved worth 
thru use by other watchstanders.  Took prompt action to last minute notification of 
arrival  of  vsl  w/significant  safety  issues  .  .  .  Quickly  addressed  response  needs 
during commercial vsl grounding; actions resulted in successful refloating with no 
impact to environment . . .      

 
 
With respect to his placement in the fourth block on the comparison scale in block 9, the 
applicant argued that the mark was inconsistent with everything else the reporting officer wrote 
in  his  portion  of  the  OER.  He  noted  that  in  his  two  previous  OERs,  which  evaluated  his 
performance in the same job, he was placed in the fifth highest block on the comparison scale.  
 
 
the following: 
 

In describing the applicant’s potential in block 10 of the OER, the reporting officer wrote 

 

 

Extremely capable officer & marine safety professional.  Mbr is a valuable asset 
&  has  performed  well  during  this  period  particularly  during  issue  where  a  calm 
demeanor & well rounded exp is req’d.  His people oriented leadership style has 
earned  respect  form  subordinates  and  proven  to  be  effective  in  all  situations.  
Bilingual  skills  &  ability  to  focus  on  priorities  have  been  valuable  to  mission 
accomplishment.    Desires  to  be  assigned  to  MSO  inspector  billet  to  con’t 
professional development.  This will allow him to broaden his experience, achieve 
professional  goals  &  successfully  compete  for  future  challenging  assignments.  
Recommended for con’t promotion w/peers.    

  
The Second Disputed OER 
 
 
The second disputed OER for the period February 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004 evaluated the 
applicant’s  performance  as  an  1ST  Tour  Marine  Inspector,  with  a  different  supervisor  and 
reporting officer than in the first disputed OER.   
 
 
In  the  supervisor’s  portion  of  the  OER,  the  applicant  received  marks  of  4  in  using 
resources  and  professional  competence  and  marks  of  5  in  planning  and  preparedness, 
results/effectiveness, and adaptability in the performance of duties area of the OER. 
 
 
speaking and listening and writing dimensions.   
 
 
In the leadership skills areas of the OER, the supervisor assigned the applicant marks 4 in 
looking  out  for  others,  teamwork,  workplace  climate,  and  evaluations  and  marks  of  5  in  the 
developing others and directing others dimensions.   
 
 
In  the  reporting  officer’s  portion  of  the  OER,  the  applicant  received  marks  of  4  in  the 
initiative, judgment, responsibility, professional presence, and health and well-being dimensions.  
He  received  a  mark  in  the  third  lowest  block  on  the  comparison  scale  (fair  performer; 
recommended for increased responsibility).   
 

In the communications area of the OER, the supervisor gave the applicant marks of 4 in 

The applicant alleged that the reporting officer, CDR E, directed the supervisor to lower 
or assign certain marks in the supervisor’s portion of the OER, which violated Article 10.A.2.f.2 
of  the  Personnel  Manual.    This  provision  prohibits  the  reporting  officer  from  directing  the 
supervisor to change marks and/or comments.2   

 
 
 
  

 
                                                 
2   The Coast Guard in its advisory opinion agreed with the applicant that the reporting officer violated 
the  Personnel  Manual  by  directing  the  supervisor  to  assign  certain  marks  to  the  applicant  in  the 
supervisor’s portion of the OER and recommended that the OER be removed.  The applicant challenged 
the  marks  and  comments  in  this  OER,  but  in  light  of  the  Coast  Guard’s  admission  of  error,  the  Board 
need not consider the remaining allegations. 

 

 

Failures of selection for promotion to LCDR 
 
 
The applicant alleged that his two failures of selection for promotion to LCDR were due 
to the alleged erroneous OERs.  He argued that make whole relief with regard to his failures is a 
direct promotion to LCDR by the Board.   
 

The applicant further contended that he has not  been able to utilize tuition assistance to 
pursue a graduate degree because of his mandatory June 30, 2010 retirement date caused by his 
two failures of selection for promotion to the next higher grade.    
 
Applicant’s other OERs 
 
 
On his first LTJG OER, the applicant received eight 5s, nine 6s, one 7 and a mark in the 
fifth  place  on  the  comparison  scale.    On  his  second  LTJG  OER,  the  applicant  received  one  4, 
twelve 5s, five 6s, and a mark in the fifth place (out of seven places with the seventh being the 
highest) on the comparisons scale.  On his third LTJG OER, the applicant received one 4, twelve 
5s, five 6s, and a mark in the fifth block on the comparison scale.  On his fourth LTJG (the first 
disputed  OER)  the  applicant  received  two  4s,  thirteen  5s,  three  6s,  and  a  mark  in  the  fourth 
(middle) block on the comparison scale.  The first disputed OER is the last the applicant received 
as a LTJG. 
 
 
The  applicant’s  record  has  five  OERs  in  the  grade  of  LT.    On  his  first  OER  (second 
disputed OER), the applicant received thirteen 4s, five 5s, and a mark in the third of seven blocks 
on the comparison scale.  On his second LT OER, the applicant received ten 4s, seven 5s, one 6, 
and  a  mark  in  the  fourth  block  on  the  comparison  scale.    On  his  third  LT  OER,  the  applicant 
received two 4s, ten 5s, three 6s, and a mark in the fifth block on the comparison scale.  On his 
fourth LT OER, the applicant received seven 5s, eleven 6s, and a mark in the fifth block on the 
comparison  scale.    On  his  fifth  LT  OER,  the  applicant  received  nine  5s,  eight  6s,  one  7,  and  a 
mark in the fifth block on the comparison scale.   
  

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On April  8,  2010,  the  Judge Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard  submitted  an 
advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  grant  the  following  partial  relief,  as 
recommended by PSC: 
 

Correct  the  2003/01/31  OER  date  of  submission  [on  the  first  disputed  OER]  by 
replacing the date in block 1.m. with 2003/01/10. 
 
Replace the [second disputed OER] with a Continuity OER. 
 
Submit the applicant’s record for a second consideration for selection at the [PY] 
2011 LCDR selection board. 
 

 

 

If  a  decision  is  not  rendered  by  the  BCMR  prior  to  the  applicant’s  scheduled 
separation  date  [June  30,  2010],  the  applicant  should  be  separated  as  previously 
ordered and await the final results of the Board.   

 
 
The  JAG  asked  that  PSC  comments  serve  as  the  advisory  opinion.    In  recommending 
partial  relief,  PSC  stated  that  based  upon  declarations  from  the  rating  chain  for  the  second 
disputed OER and the statements from the applicant, the reporting officer violated the regulation 
by amending the supervisor’s marks and comments.    PSC stated that the supervisor, in a recent 
statement,  confirmed  that  changes  were  made  to  the  second  disputed  OER,  even  though  they 
were not adverse.  According to PSC, the supervisor accepted the changes out of respect for the 
reporting officer’s seniority and experience.  PSC also stated the following: 
 

The supervisor stated that he forwarded input to the applicant’s reporting officer 
and  he  was  informed  that  LCDR  R  would  be  a  part  of  the  review  since  he  had 
observed the applicant while he was assigned to the Port Operations Division.  In 
this  case  the  supervisors  should  have  worked  closely  to  evaluate  the  applicant’s 
performance since it spanned two different divisions.   
 
The reviewer/commanding officer failed to ensure the [second disputed] OER was 
accurate, fair and objective by not maintaining rating chain continuity . . .  Based 
on  the  aforementioned  inaccuracies  this  OER  is  not  a  valid  report.    All  other 
inaccuracies  brought  forth  by  the  applicant  concerning  this  OER  were  not 
considered.     

 
Advisory Opinion on the First Disputed OER 
 
 
 
PSC recommended that the submission date the OER be changed from January 31, 2003 
to January 10, 2003.  PSC did not recommend any relief with respect to the marks and comments 
on the first disputed OER.  PSC stated that the marks and comments portray the applicant as an 
above  average  performer,  despite  the  applicants  view  to  the  contrary.    PSC  stated  that  the 
applicant  offered  conjecture  but  not  concrete  evidence  that  shows  that  his  performance  was 
different  than  that  described  by  the  reporting  officer.      PSC  noted  that  none  of  the  applicant’s 
marks  were  lower  than  4,  which  represents  the  expected  standard  of  performance  for  a  Coast 
Guard officer. 
 
 
PSC  stated  that  the  4  in  the  initiative  dimension  is  consistent  with  the  comment 
“Undertook various taskings including: made contacts w/local agencies for input to WMD plan 
&  update  of  Marine  Firefighting  plan;  plans  updated/completed  increasing  capability.”    PSC 
stated that the comments placed the applicant in a positive light and are not indicative of a rating 
chain member acting with malice.  
 
 
PSC noted the applicant’s allegation that the comparison scale mark in the middle block 
is inconsistent with the reporting officer’s marks and comments in blocks 7 & 8.  PSC stated that 
the  comparison  scale  does  not  necessarily  denote  a  trend  in  performance,  thus  an  officer  could 
improve  in  performance  but  drop  a  category  from  period  to  period.    PSC  stated  that  the 
comparison scale is a relative ranking of an officer compared to officers of the same grade that 

 

 

the reporting officer has known throughout his career and does not require supporting comments 
in blocks 7 and 8.   
 
 
PSC  stated  that  contrary  to  his  contention,  the  applicant  did  not  provide  information  to 
support  disqualifying  the  rating  chain;  nor  did  he  demonstrate  how  the  alleged  conduct  was 
manifested in the disputed OER.   
 
 
Advisory on the Removal of the Applicant’s Failures of Selection for Promotion to LCDR  
 
 
PSC  stated  that  the  Coast  Guard  has  no  record  to  confirm  or  dispute  the  applicant’s 
contention that his record was eliminated “on the first round of both promotion boards due to the 
disputed [OERs].”  Furthermore, PSC noted that it is impossible to predict what impact, if any, 
the applicant’s disputed OERs may have had on the proceedings of the PY 2009 and 2010 LCDR 
selections boards.  PSC further stated: 
 

The  [second  disputed]  OER  was  the  applicant’s  first  as  a  LT.    The  promotion 
board reviewed four OERs that occurred prior to the second disputed OER and six 
OERs subsequent to the second disputed OER.  PSC believes it is highly unlikely 
that one OER would have resulted in the member’s non-selection; however it is in 
the best interest of the applicant to give him one final opportunity to go  before a 
selection board with a Continuity OER instead of the second disputed OER.    

   
Rating Chain Statements Attached to the Advisory Opinion 
 

1.  The supervisor for the first disputed OER (CDR L) stated that the disputed OERS are 
a  fair  and  accurate  depiction  of  the  applicant’s  performance  and  do  not  contain  any  damaging 
comments.    He  stated  that  as  a  LTJG,  the  applicant  performed  well  with  proper  guidance  and 
capitalized on his experience as a previously enlisted member.  However, more would have been 
expected of him as a LT.  CDR L further stated the following: 
 

[The  applicant]  states  .  .  .  that  he  was  micromanaged  by  LCDR  R.    My 
interpretation of this is that he was given clear direction, sometimes to the level of 
detail LCDR R thought necessary.  I too was a subordinate of LCDR R and don’t 
believe  he  was  a  micromanager.    He  adjusted  his  leadership  style  as  he  thought 
necessary to ensure mission accomplishment.  I also received detailed instructions 
when  necessary  but  never  viewed  it  as  being  micromanaged.    It  is  important  to 
note that not only did we have a new Port Operations Department Chief (LCDR 
R], we also had a new commanding officer, who in my opinion, held those at his 
command strictly to the standards written on the OER form . . .  I too had to adjust 
to meet the expectations of this new rating chain.   
 
[The applicant] stated that he was constantly abused and humiliated by LCDR R. 
In my opinion, this is not true.  As his assistant, I believe I was very much aware 
of happenings within the department and would have been aware of any abuse or 

 

 

humiliation.    From  my  perspective,  LCDR  R  treated  all  subordinates  with  the 
same utmost professionalism.   
 

  * 

* 

* 

 
[The  applicant]  states  .  .  .  that  LCDR  R  and  CDR  M  conspired  to  give  him  a 
damaging OER due to their irrational prejudice towards him.  I have known both 
of  these  officers  for  many  years  and  have  worked  with  and  for  both  of  them 
during my career.  I have no reason to believe that they would conspire to end the 
career of a LT.  I am confident that they evaluated [the applicant] against the same 
standard they used for any other subordinate. 

 
 
2.  The reporting officer for the first disputed OER, LCDR R, stood by his evaluation of 
the  applicant’s  performance  and  elaborated  extensively  on  the  allegations  and  documentary 
evidence submitted by the applicant.  LCDR R wrote the following in pertinent part: 
 

[M]y comments accurately captured my best assessment of [the applicant] at the 
time and I still stand by them.  I believe they stand on their own and are actually 
complemented by [the applicant’s] own comments in his BCMR.  I did not intend 
them to be a kiss of death for subsequent promotions and therefore was generous 
in  my  compliments  to  the  utmost  whenever,  I  could;  unfortunately  my 
compliments are being used as contradictions.  Had I really been as hell-bent on 
prejudicing  future  boards  as  [the  applicant]  feels  I  was,  the  tone  of  my  write  up 
would have been drastically different.  I felt the applicant deserved a chance; I did 
believe his  forte may be elsewhere.  As a  LTJG, I felt being part of a bullpen or 
cadre of officers with similar responsibilities would provide him an opportunity to 
regroup.  For whatever reason, I still felt [the applicant] could accomplish much 
more than he thought capable of; his OERs while at Yorktown bear me out.  

 
3.  The supervisor for the second disputed OER, LCDR P, made positive statements about 
 
the  applicant’s  performance.    He  stated  that  because  the  applicant  spent  part  of  the  reporting 
period  in  the  Port  Operations  Department,  LCDR  R  was  consulted  about  the  applicant’s 
performance.  LCDR P stated that when he was counseled he noticed that the OER he submitted 
was different from the OER he signed.  He stated that the comments and marks that he proposed 
had  changed  and  that  he  did  not  remember  exactly  which  marks  were  affected.    He  stated  that 
because  he  was  a  junior  LT  at  the  time  and  the  reporting  officer,  CDR  E.  was  a  middle  grade 
officer,  he  took  the  OER  as  a  learning  experience  and  trusted  the  judgment  of  the  reporting 
officer.   
 

APPLICANT’S REPLY TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
The  applicant  agreed  with  the  Coast  Guard  that  the  second  disputed  OER  should  be 
removed  and  replaced  with  a  report  for  continuity  purposes.    He  requested  that  the  block  2 
description of duties3 be modified from: 
                                                 
3  In a Continuity OER, the description of duties block is completed, but the remainder of the OER is marked non-
observed. 

 

 

 

 
To: 
 

1ST  TOUR  MARINE  INSPECTOR  (08/04-06/04):4  Quality  in  MI  development 
program & qualify Foreign Freight Vsl INSP.  PLANNING & COORDINATION 
BRANCH  (02/03-08/03):    Supervises  1  CPO  &  1  senior  PO  with  overall 
responsibility for unit’s contingency planning activities & information sharing via 
unit website including oil/hazmat, hurricane & marine fire fighting.  Coordinates 
w/other Fed/State & local gov’t agencies & industry to ensure plan development. 
Manages  scenario  development  &  exercises  to  test/refine  &  create  new  plan.  
COLL  DUTY:    Command  Duty  Ofcr  (CDO);  Directs  COTP  actions  during  port 
safety, environment emergencies in AOR.    

PRIMARY:  PLANNING  &  COORDINATION  BRANCH,  Supervised  one  CPO 
and  one  PO1  with  overall  responsibility  for  all  unit  contingency-planning 
activities  &  info  sharing  via  unit  website  including  oil/hazmat,  hurricane,  and 
marine  fire  fighting.    Coordinates  w/other  Fed/State  &  local  Government 
Agencies & industry to ensure most comprehensive plan development.  Manages 
scenario  development  &  exercises  to  rest/refine  &  create  new  plans.    Collateral 
Duties:    Command  Duty  Officer  (CDO)  –  Manages  all  after-hrs  MSO  related 
incidents  in  21  port  AOR  of  PR  and  USVI  &  maintains  critical  link  between 
GANTSEC/D7, Conducts Inspections of FV, CS and SPV. 

 
 
With  respect  to  the  first  disputed  OER,  the  applicant  agreed  that  the  submission  date 
should  be  changed  to  January  10,  2003.    However,  the  applicant  disagreed  with  the  Coast 
Guard’s  conclusion  that  the  first  disputed  OER  accurately  documented  his  performance  during 
the rating period.    He further disagreed that  he had not  carried his  burden of proving that the 
reporting  officer’s  behavior  towards  him  was  unprofessional,  biased,  and  hostile  and  was 
manifested in LCDR R’s allegedly inaccurate evaluation of his performance in the first disputed 
OER.    The  applicant  made  the  same  arguments  that  he  made  in  his  initial  submission  to  the 
BCMR (and they will not be repeated here).   
 
 
The applicant stated that except for the 4 in initiative, the mark in the middle block on the 
block  9.  comparison  scale,  and  the  challenged  comments  in  block  7  of  the  first  disputed  OER, 
the remainder of the OER is acceptable.  Therefore, he requested rather than deleting the entire 
OER,  that  the  Board  raise  the  4  to  5  in  the  initiative  block,  raise  the  mark  on  the  comparison 
scale  from  the  middle  block  to  the  fifth  place  (out  of  7)  and  delete  the  following  underlined 
comments from block 7: 
 

ROO [reported-on officer] continues  growth  as  M Professional.    Had  adapted to 
new  RO  [reporting  officer]  style;  ROO  given  greater  autonomy  on  long-term 
comprehensive  projects  &  has  steadily  shown  increasing  perseverance.    I’m 
confident  that,  with  appropriate  tasking,  ROO  has  mix  of  experience  and 

                                                 
4  The  08/04  began  date  is  obviously  incorrect  in  light  of  the  fact  that  the  reporting  period  ended  on 
6/30/2004.  The Coast Guard should correct this discrepancy on the continuity OER.   

 

 

dedication  to  realize  missions  and  provide  future  CG  dividends.    ROO 
consistently  gave  superiors  good  counsel.    His  efforts  were  instrumental  in 
carrying  out  many  COTP  missions  successfully  during  this  very  high  op-tempo 
period.   

The applicant asked that if the Board deletes the underlined comments that it also direct 

 
 
the Coast Guard to include a note that the comments were removed by order of the BCMR.   
 
 
With  regard  to  the  Coast  Guard’s  recommendation  that  his  record  be  given  a  second 
consideration before the  PY 2011  LCDR selection board, the applicant  stated that he stands by 
his request for the Board to promote him to LCDR.  He argued that a direct promotion is the only 
manner  in  which  he  can  be  made  whole.    He  stated  that  his  record  would  still  be  prejudiced 
before the PY 2011 selection board because it will be evident to selection board members that he 
already twice failed to be selected for promotion to LCDR.  He also argued that his opportunity 
for  promotion  before  the  PY  2011  Board  will  be 6-6%  lower  that  it  was before  the  PY  09  and 
PY10  boards  according  to  ALCOAST  165/10  dated  April  1,  2010,  because  of  retention  and 
budgetary restraints.5   
 

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.    Under  Detweiler  v  Pena,  38  F.3d  591  (D.C.  Cir.  1994),  the 
application was timely. 
 
 
2.    The  Board  begins  its  analysis  by  presuming  that  the  disputed  OER  is  correct  as  it 
appears in  the record, and the applicant  bears the burden of proving by a  preponderance of the 
evidence that it is erroneous or unjust.6   
 
First Disputed OER 
 

3.  The applicant alleged that the first disputed OER is inaccurate because the reporting 
officer  was  biased  and  prejudiced  against  him  and  was  unable  to  objectively  evaluate  his 
performance,  which  disqualified  him  as  a  member  of  the  applicant’s  rating  chain  under Article 
10.A.2.g.2.b. of the Personnel Manual. This provision states that disqualified includes “relief for 
cause  due  to  misconduct  or  unsatisfactory  performance,  being  an  interested  party  to  an 
investigation or court of inquiry, or any other situation in which a personal interest or conflict on 
the part of the . . . reporting officer . . . raises a substantial question as to whether the reported 
officer will receive a fair, accurate evaluation.” 
                                                 
5   The applicant also stated that in order to avoid a new BCMR application, he was requesting that the 
Board direct the Coast Guard to change the date on his Marine Safety Professional Insignia to July 2004 
and to enter the Foreign Freight Vessel qualification into his record.  He claims these issues are related to 
his BCMR application.   
6 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b). 

 

 

 
4.    The  applicant  has  failed  to  prove  that  LCDR  R,  the  reporting  officer  for  the  first 
disputed OER was biased and prejudiced against him.  Many of the complaints against LCDR R 
are  about  decisions  that  LCDR R made as head  of the division in  which  the applicant  worked.  
The  Board  finds  that  LCDR  R  did  not  exceed  his  authority  or  treat  the  applicant  unfairly  by 
requiring  the  members  of  the  department  (including  the  applicant)  to  keep  a  log  of  their  daily 
activities, by requiring members to stay beyond normal work hours if he thought they would be 
needed to complete a task, by denying the applicant’s request for a transfer to another division at 
a  particular  time  if  such  was  not  in  the  best  interest  of  the  Coast  Guard,  or  by  questioning  the 
applicant about his whereabouts when he missed a training session. All such actions were within 
LCDR R’s authority as head of the division in which the applicant worked.   Since the applicant 
was  the  subordinate,  it  was  his  responsibility  to  adjust  to  the  reporting  officer’s  management 
style  and  not  the  other  way  around.    The  applicant’s  hesitancy  in  adjusting  to  the  reporting 
officer’s  management  style  was  a  proper  issue  for  consideration  when  evaluating  his 
performance and preparing his OER.  The applicant has offered no evidence that he was treated 
differently  than  other  officers  on  these  specific  issues. Although  he  stated  that  no  other  officer 
was  required  to  serve  as  CDO  when  they  transferred  from  the  Port  Operations  Division,  he 
submitted  no  proof  of  this  alleged  difference  in  treatment.    Moreover,  even  if  others  had  been 
treated differently, the mission could have changed necessitating how assignments were made or 
duties assigned.    

 
5.   The applicant’s complaints that LCDR R never gave him positive feedback, failed to 
offer  condolences  upon  the  death  of  his  nephew,  failed  to  show  any  concern  when  he  and  his 
wife  were  robbed  at  gun  point,  and  was  unaware  of  the  applicant’s  promotion  were  essentially 
admitted by the reporting officer.  While it was reasonable for the applicant to feel disappointed 
in his supervisor for these perceived slights, there is no evidence that LCDR R’s inactions in this 
regard were due to any bias or prejudice against the applicant.  Again, the applicant has offered 
no evidence that he was treated differently than others in similar situations.   

 
6.     With  regard  to  the  allegation  that  LCDR  R  laughed  and  made  a  sarcastic  comment 
about the applicant in front of the CO when the applicant became sick and needed to stop by the 
hospital, LCDR R denied that he laughed or made the sarcastic comment.  There are conflicting 
statements  from  members  of  the  unit  on  this  allegation.    According  to  BMC  R,  LCDR  R 
complained  about  the  applicant’s  health  problems  in  front  of  officers  and  enlisted  members.  
However, LTs N and O stated that it was CDR E who laughed and made fun of the applicant’s 
medical  condition.    Therefore,  the  Board  finds  that  the  applicant  has  failed  to  prove  by  a 
preponderance of the evidence that LCDR R laughed at or made fun of the applicant’s medical 
condition.      

 
7.  LCDR R admits that he shouted at the applicant after telling  the applicant he should 
look for a particular key and the applicant replied to him that he should look for the key because 
he already gave it to him.  While raising his voice to the applicant in this particular instance may 
not  have  been  the  best  practice,  there  is  no  evidence  that  it  was  done  because  LCDR  R  was 
biased  against  the  applicant.    In  addition,  the  applicant  also  acted  inappropriately  by  shouting 
back  at  his  reporting  officer  who  was  also  his  superior  commissioned  officer.    The  statements 
from  the  applicant,  LCDR  R,  and  several  other  officers  stationed  at  the  unit  suggest  that  there 

 

 

was  some  strife  between  the  applicant  and  the  reporting  officer.    However  workplace  tension 
between supervisor and employee does not necessarily mean that a supervisor is biased against a 
subordinate  or  that  the  supervisor  can  not  fairly  and  objectively  evaluate  an  officer’s 
performance.    In  BCMR  No.  2000-037,  the  then-Secretary’s  delegate  found  that  disagreement 
between the rating chain and the reported-on officer about management style did not equate to a 
personality  conflict  and  that  .  .  .    comment  on  that  reported-on  officer’s  management  or 
mismanagement of a particular project was “entirely appropriate for an OER.” 
 

8.  Since the applicant has not proven that LCDR R was disqualified to serve on his rating 
chain due to bias or prejudice, the issue becomes whether there were mistakes of significant hard 
facts in the disputed OER that would entitle the applicant 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.  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).   The burden of proving misstatements  of 
significant  facts  is  normally  met  by  credible  statements  from  individuals  offering  a  different 
view  of  the  applicant’s  performance  based  upon  their  personal  knowledge  and  observations  or 
some  other  evidence  that  establishes  an  inaccuracy  in  the  OER.    The  supervisor  and  reporting 
officer  have  reaffirmed  the  accuracy  of  the  OER  and  the  applicant  has  only  offered  his 
assessment  of  his  performance  to  prove  otherwise.    The  applicant’s  disagreement  with  the 
evaluation is insufficient to prove that the OER is inaccurate.   

 
9.  Even if the applicant had proven LCDR R was biased against him (which he has not), 
he would still need to show that the bias manifested itself through misstatements or inaccuracies 
in the OER.  As stated above, the applicant has offered no evidence, other than his own analysis, 
that  the  disputed  comments  and  marks  in  the  first  disputed  OER  are  inaccurate.    Nor  has  he 
provided any evidence that his performance was better than indicated in the first disputed OER.   
 

10.  With regard to the 4 in initiative, the applicant argued that it is inconsistent with the 
reporting  officer’s  comments.    The  Board,  having  read  the  entirety  of  the  reporting  officer’s 
comments  did not find them  to  be inconsistent with  a 4.  Article 10.A.4.c.4.g. of the Personnel 
Manual states, “A mark of 4 represents the expected standard of performance,” which is defined 
as “the high level of performance expected of all Coast Guard officers.”  See Article 10.A.1.c.2. 
of  the  Personnel  Manual.  The  applicant  offers  no  evidence  of  his  performance,  except  for  his 
own statement, during the reporting period that is not mentioned in the disputed OER that would 
mandate a mark higher than 4 in the initiative dimension.     

 
11. The applicant believes that his mark in the middle block on the comparison scale in 
block 9 of the disputed OER is inaccurate because it is inconsistent with the reporting officer’s 
comments. Again based upon the Board’s review of the reporting officer’s comments, we do not 
find the mark in middle block on the comparison scale, which describes the applicant as one of 
the  many  competent  professionals  who  perform  the  majority  of  this  grade,  to  be  inaccurate  or 
inconsistent with the reporting officer’s comments.  Moreover, this mark represents the reporting 
officer’s  comparison  of  the  applicant  with  other  LTs  that  the  reporting  officer  has  known 
throughout his career and is not necessarily a trend of performance.  Article 10.A.4.c.8.a. of the 

 

 

Personnel Manual.  The fact that the applicant received marks of 5 on the comparison scale from 
previous reporting officers is not proof that the current reporting officer’s mark is not his honest 
assessment of where the applicant placed when compared to other LTJGs.    In light of the above 
the  Board  finds  that  the  applicant  has  failed  to  prove  an  error  or  injustice  with  respect  to  the 
evaluation of his performance in the first disputed OER. 

 
12.  As recommended by the Coast Guard and in the absence of any objection from the 
applicant, the Board will correct the report submission date in block 1.m. from January 31, 2003 
to January 10, 2003.   
 
Second Disputed OER 
 

13.  The Coast Guard found, and the Board agrees, that the second disputed OER, which 
involves a different reporting officer, should be removed, because the reporting officer violated 
Article  10.A.2.e.2.c.of  the  Personnel  Manual  by  directing  the  supervisor  to  assign  or  change 
certain  marks  and  comments  in  the  supervisor’s  portion  of  the  disputed  OER.    In  light  of  this 
finding,  there  is  no  need  to  address  other  allegations  raised  by  the  applicant  with  regard  to  the 
second  disputed  OER.    The  Board  will  direct  that  the  second  disputed  OER  be  removed  and 
replaced with a report for continuity purposes.   

 
The Board notes that the applicant has asked that his rewrite of the description of duties 
be substituted for those in block 2.  However, according to Article 10.A.3.a.5.d. of the Personnel 
Manual, preparing the description of duties section of the Continuity OER is the responsibility of 
the  supervisor  and  the  Board  will  not  order  it  to  be  rewritten  without  the  supervisor’s  review.   
The  Coast  Guard  is  encouraged  to  review  and  use  the  applicant’s  draft  revised  description  of 
duties for the continuity OER if the supervisor has no objection to it. 

 

Removal of Failures of Selection for Promotion to LCDR 
 

14.  The applicant requested that upon a finding of error or injustice that the Board order 
his promotion to the grade of LCDR, as well as direct the removal of his two failures of selection 
of promotion to  LCDR.  The Board does not normally promote but instead removes failures of 
selection  for  promotion  that  allows  the  applicant  another  opportunity(s)  to  be  considered  for 
promotion  by  a  duly  constituted  selection  board  with  a  corrected  record.    See  United  States  v. 
Dodson, 988 F.2d 1199 (Fed. Cir. 1993), citing Doyle v. United States, 599 F.2d 984, 998 (1979) 
(stating that the BCMR may potentially remedy an error which it has found to have occurred in a 
selection  decision  by  ordering  a  new  selection  board  convened  to  make  the  decision  de  novo).  
Moreover,  decisions  on  promotions  are  better  left  to  the  Service  which  has  a  selection  board 
process in place to determine who is best qualified for service in the next higher grade.    

 
15.    Acknowledging  the  error  with  regard  to  the  second  disputed  OER,  PSC 
recommended  that  the  applicant  be  given  a  final  opportunity  for  selection  for  promotion  to 
LCDR, which is essentially a recommendation for the removal of his second failure of selection 
before  the  PY  2010  LCDR  selection  board.   The  Board  agrees  with  the  removal  of  the  second 
failure of selection for promotion, but also finds that the first failure should be removed.  If the 

 

 

disputed OER was prejudicial to the applicant before the second selection board, it is reasonable 
to conclude that it was also prejudicial before the first selection board.    
 
 
16..  The  Board  finds  that  the  erroneous  second  disputed  OER  with  a  mark  in  the  third 
place (out of a high of 7) on the comparison scale that described the applicant as a fair performer 
when  all  of  his  other  OERs  described  him  as  either  a  good  or  excellent  performer  was 
prejudicial. By recommending that the applicant receive a final look before the LCDR selection 
board, the Coast Guard admits that the erroneous OER was prejudicial. In BCMR No. 2008-115, 
the Coast Guard recommended removing that applicant’s two failures of selection for promotion 
because  of  the  erroneous  prejudicial  comments  the  Board  ordered  removed  were  in  his  record 
both  times  that  it  was  considered  by  the  selection  board.  Accordingly,  the  applicant’s  two 
failures of selection should be removed from his record and he should be allowed two additional 
opportunities to compete for promotion to LCDR based upon a corrected record.   
 
17.  Article 12.A.13.d.1. of the Personnel Manual states that an officer in the grade of LT 
 
who fails twice to LCDR is involuntarily discharged or retired.  The Board finds that because the 
erroneous second disputed OER resulted in the applicant failures of selection for promotion and 
his eventual involuntary retirement, he should be returned to active duty.  See Germano v. United 
States, 26 Cl. Ct. 1446 (1992); Engels v. United States at 180 (reinstating officers to active duty 
whose  involuntary  discharges  were  the  result  of  having  twice  failed  of  selections  due  to 
prejudicial  inaccurate  records).  Therefore,  the  Board  agrees  with  the  Coast  Guard  that  the 
applicant should be reinstated on active duty.   
 
Ancillary Issues 
 
18.  In his response to the advisory opinion, the applicant asked the Board to change the 
 
date  on  his  Marine  Safety  Professional  Insignia  to  July  2004  from  May  26,  2006  when  it  was 
allegedly  approved.    He  also  asked  belatedly  to  have  his  Foreign  Vessel  Qualification  entered 
into his record.  The Board will not rule on either of the requests because the Coast Guard has 
not  had  an  opportunity  to  comment.    The  Board  will  advise  the  Coast  Guard  to  review  and 
consider  the  requests,  and  if  appropriate,  comply  with  the  applicant’s  request.    If  no  action  is 
taken  on  the  request  for  a  corrective  date  for  the  applicant’s  completion  of  the  Marine  Safety 
Professional Insignia or the request to enter the Foreign Vessel Qualification into his record, the 
applicant may reapply to this Board.  The Coast Guard shall advise the applicant within 90 days 
from the date of this decision whether it will correct his record in this regard.  
 
19.    With  regard  to  the  applicant’s  request  for  tuition  reimbursement,  the  Board  has 
 
insufficient evidence that the applicant is owed any money in this regard.  He is encouraged to 
submit his request for such reimbursement and any proof to the appropriate Coast Guard officials 
for consideration.  If such request is denied, the applicant may reapply to this Board.   
 
 
the findings and conclusions are not considered dispositive of the issues in this case. 
 
 
  

20.  All of the applicant’s allegations have been considered.  Those not discussed within 

 

 

Conclusion 
 

21.   Accordingly,  the  Board  finds  that  the  applicant’s  second  disputed  OER  should  be 
removed and replaced with a Continuity OER.  The Board further finds that his two failures of 
selection  for  promotion  to  LCDR  should  be  removed  from  his  record  and  that  he  should  have 
two new opportunities to complete for promotion to  LCDR.   If he is  selected  for promotion  to 
LCDR  by  the  first  Board  that  considers  him  with  a  corrected  record,  he  should  have  a  date  of 
rank  commensurate  with  that  Board  or  a  date  of  rank  commensurate  with  the  PY  09  selection 
board, at his discretion with back pay and allowances.  If he is selected for promotion to LCDR 
by the second board, he shall receive a date of rank commensurate with that board.   Finally, the 
Board finds that the applicant should be reinstated to active duty, with back pay and allowances, 
subject to appropriate off-sets.  

 

 

 

 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCG  (Ret.)  for  correction  of  his  military 

record is granted in part, as follows: 

 
The  OER  for  the  period  January  1,  2002  to  January  31,  2003  shall  be  corrected  by 

changing the date in block 1.m. (OER submission date) to January 10, 2003. 

 
  The OER for the period February 1, 2003, to June 30, 2004, shall be removed from the 

applicant's record and replaced with a report for continuity purposes only.   

 
The  applicant’s  PY  09  and  PY  10  failures  of  selection  for  promotion  to  LCDR  shall  be 
removed  from  his  record  and  he  shall  have  two  more  selection  opportunities  for  promotion  to 
that grade.   If he is selected for promotion  to  LCDR by the first  Board  to  consider  him  with  a 
corrected record, he shall receive a date of rank commensurate with that board or a date of rank 
commensurate with the PY 09 LCDR board, at his discretion, with back pay and allowances once 
promoted.    If  the  applicant  is  selected  by  the  second  board,  he  shall  receive  a  date  of  rank 
commensurate with that Board.   

   
The applicant’s involuntary retirement shall be removed from his record and he shall be 
reinstated on  active duty, if he desires.   Within  a reasonable time, but  not to  exceed sixty days 
from  the  date  of  this  decision,  the  Coast  Guard  shall  offer  the  applicant  the  opportunity  to  be 
reinstated on active duty.  Such reinstatement shall be at a time convenient to the applicant and 
Coast  Guard,  but  must  be  completed  within  six  months  from  the  date  of  this  decision.  The 
applicant's  record  shall  be  further  corrected  to  show  that  he  was  never  discharged  from  active 
duty.  He shall receive back pay and allowances, subject to appropriate off-sets. 
 
All other requests for relief are denied. 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

_____________________________________ 
Thomas H. Van Horn   

_____________________________________ 
 Darren S. Wall 

 

_____________________________________ 
 George A. Weller