DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2010-110 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX   
   

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 on February 20, 2010 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  December  3,  2010,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  her  record  by  removing  an  officer  evaluation 
report  (OER)  for  the  period  February  1,  2007,  through  March  31,  2008  (disputed  OER).    She 
alleged that the OER is not an accurate reflection of her performance, but rather “the result of a 
poorly managed personality conflict between two commanders with very different backgrounds 
and skill sets.”  In this regard she stated that the disputed OER was “not about my performance 
but  about  my  unwillingness  to,  as  .  .  .  the  commanding  officer  (CO)  asked  me,  ‘help  the  XO 
[executive officer] do his job.’”   The XO, a commander, was the applicant’s supervisor for the 
disputed OER.  
 

 The applicant alleged that neither the CO nor the XO counseled her during or after the 
marking  period  about  specific  actions  she  could  have  taken  to  improve  her  performance.    She 
stated that she received the disputed OER three months into the next reporting period and that it 
was left on her desk without any comment.   She stated that she spoke to the CO about the OER 
and he told her that he needed to get her attention because her negative relationship with the XO 
was hurting the unit.  She stated that the CO did not provide any specific feedback on how she 
could improve her relationship with the XO, but she admitted that she “ambushed” the CO and 
“barged into [his] office as he was getting ready to go TAD and wanted to know how he could 
sign  off  on  what  was  basically  the  worst  OER  I  had  received  since  I  was  a  lieutenant.”    She 
stated that she apologized to the XO and after discussing the OER with him, he raised some of 
the original marks but still did not offer any specific examples for why he assigned the marks or 

 

 

how she could attain higher marks in her next evaluation.  She stated that the XO noted that she 
was “already doing better.”   

 
The applicant stated that in earlier discussions with the CO and XO about OERs for the 

junior officers, they all agreed that marks of 4 were not good marks.   
 
 
The applicant offered a summary of events during the evaluation period.  She stated that 
this  was  her  first  tour  in  intelligence  and  she  was  working  hard  to  understand  her  job,  but  the 
command climate issues, inconsistency, and lack  of  direction from  the XO were distracting for 
her.  She stated that in August 2007, she expressed her concern to the CO, who was the reporting 
officer for the OER, about the XO’s inability to do his job.  She stated that the CO asked her to 
help  the  XO  do  his  job,  to  which  she  replied  that  “an  O-5  command  cadre  billet  was  not  a 
training  billet.    I  did  however  assist  the  logistics  officer  and  other  division  officers  as  best  I 
could.”  The applicant stated that in October 2007 she put her concerns in writing and asked to 
be short-toured.  She submitted an email from the XO to her dated October 13, 2007 wherein the 
XO questioned some marks she had assigned to  a  LT.   The applicant  submitted an email  dated 
October 13, 2007 addressed to  the CO  complaining  about  the  email  that  she received from  the 
XO.  She stated in that email to the CO that she had not received an email like the one from the 
XO since she was a boot lieutenant.  She told the CO that she did not trust the XO.  She stated 
that he had a LCDR doing his administrative work because he did not know how to do it.  She 
stated that the XO was keen on taking credit for other’s work when it was good, but he was not 
keen on making tough decisions and taking responsibility.  The applicant further stated that she 
could not respect a man “who says he wants his objectives to be hard for us when he has an O-4 
doing much of his job.  [The XO] has zero credibility with me.”  She asked for a transfer.   
 

The applicant stated that in December 2007, the XO asked her what was wrong, but their 
discussion did not include any of the XO’s concerns about her performance.  She stated that she 
told the XO she would try to be more helpful in passing on information that she became aware of 
from the deck-plate level.  She stated that when she reported the results of the conversation she 
had  with  the  XO  to  the  CO,  he  replied  “I  want  more,”  but  he  never  told  her  exactly  what  he 
expected from her in covering up the XO’s incompetence.   
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  in  March  2008,  the  XO  became  upset  with  her  for  sending  an 
email to the CO recommending reorganization of the unit to include the elimination of the XO’s 
position.  The XO told her that she was not a team player.  In retrospect, the applicant stated that 
this could have constituted counseling.  She stated, “I have never counseled anyone in anger, or, 
been counseled in anger and since the words, ‘this will be in  your OER’ were never mentioned 
and I was not told how to improve, I figured that the XO was venting because he thought I was 
provoking him.”   
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  in  June  2008,  three  months  into  the  next  reporting  period,  she 
received the disputed OER, which was left on her desk without any comment.  She stated that in 
August  2008,  she  had  a  discussion  with  the  CO  about  her  perception  that  he  had  different 
expectations for active duty officers and Reserve officers.  She said that her request for the CO’s 
help in obtaining a transfer was reasonable since he had assisted in resolving another personality 
conflict  by  moving  one  of  the  participants,  apparently  a  civilian,  to  another  position.  The 

 

 

applicant stated that the CO told her that he thought about calling the Commander, Coast Guard 
Personnel Command about transferring her but did not do so because he did not want to be seen 
as transferring a problem.  The applicant stated that the CO agreed to support her request for a 
transfer if she could find the right job.   
 
 
In  October  2008,  the  applicant  stated  that  she  was  being  considered  for  a  special 
assignment which required that she submit her most recent OER.  She sent the reviewer for the 
OER, an admiral, an email seeking an audience to discuss the OER.  The applicant wrote to the 
reviewer that she was never counseled by the CO and that she had expressed her concerns to the 
CO  in  writing  about  the  XO’s  trustworthiness  and  competence  and  had  asked  for  a  short-tour.  
She stated that the CO asked her twice to help the XO do his job, to which she replied that she 
did not think an O-5 command cadre billet was a training tour.  In the email to the reviewer, the 
applicant also stated the following: 
 

I  am  convinced  that  this  OER  was  not  about  my  performance,  but,  rather  the 
result  of  a  mismanaged  personality  conflict  between  two  commanders  with 
completely  different  career  backgrounds  (mine  .  .  .    active  duty,  legacy 
[operational]  ashore,  progressive  leadership  positions  in  my  community  and  a 
couple of fairly [high-visibility] staff tours, [versus] a legacy . . . reserve officer. 
 

  # 

# 

# 

Admiral, I realize this was a mistake, and take responsibility for not following the 
CO’s order.  However I think it was unfair to ask that of me as I am new to intel 
and was trying to learn my own job and the intel community.  Also, I don’t think 
it’s fair if this was what caused so many low marks and wishy-washy comments, 
because I was not given specific actions to take, or told what specifically was not 
getting  done  and  how  the  command  was  being  hurt  because  I  refused  the  CO’s 
request.   
 
The XO did  counsel  me, but  his feedback was not  appropriate to the 4s he gave 
me, except in workplace climate.   I will admit his credibility with me is  so low 
that his feedback is not well received.  I am trying to improve in that area.   
 
I did apologize to the XO for the stress I caused him.   

 

 

The  applicant  stated  she  told  the  reviewer  that  she  wanted  a  transfer  and  reviewer 
comments  attached  to  the  OER  to  address  some  input  that  had  not  been  included  in  the  OER.  
She stated that the reviewer said “I should have been more helpful to the XO” and that “you will 
do great in your assignment at DHS.” 
 
 
The applicant concluded by stating that the workplace climate at  the unit  was hostile at 
best and that she went on temporary assignment in October 2008 and did not return to the unit 
until both the CO and XO had left.  The applicant stated that the CO’s comment that he used the 
OER  to  get  my  attention  was  an  inappropriate  use  of  the  OER  and  it  does  not  belong  in  her 
record.  The applicant is now on terminal leave, after which she will be officially retired.   

 

 

 
Pertinent Excerpts from other Emails Submitted by the Applicant 
 
 
In a September 30, 2007 email to the CO, the applicant suggested a reorganization of the 
unit that included changing the XO’s position into a logistics officer position.  In responding to 
the XO’s statement to her that the two of them needed to talk more and “be joined at the hip”, the 
applicant  wrote  in  the  email:    “I  thought  about  why  I  don’t  talk  to  [the  XO]  regularly.   Aside 
from  the  fact  I  am  in  complete  disagreement  on  many  of  his  leadership  and  management 
philosophies, I see no need to talk to him routinely because if I have a question about intel I go to 
TD . . . . If I have an issue about cross division events, I go to MB.  If I have an issue or question 
about personnel or logistics, I go to S. . . . If I want to be mentored, I end up in your office.” 
 
 
In  an October 13, 2007  email, the  applicant  told the CO that  his  command was not big 
enough  for  two  O-5s  with  their  personality  and  experience  differences.    She  expressed  her 
distrust of the XO and her disagreement with the assignment of his “alleged” administrative tasks 
to a LCDR.   
 
 
In  a  December  4,  2007  email  to  the  CO,  the  applicant  wrote  that  she  did  not  have  the 
discussion with the XO that the CO wanted them to have, but she did agree to keep the sniping 
out of the CO’s office.  The applicant also wrote:  “I also acknowledge that it may appear I don’t 
support [the XO], and I said I would work on the perception.  That is the best I can do for you at 
this time given my background and expectations.  I will also work more on caring less that I am 
right about much of what sets me off, and take care of watch div[ision] as best I can.  I will be a 
retired commander in 970 days, and I would like to get there without ruining any more teeth, and 
I certainly don’t need the constant low grade headaches that have migraine potential either." 
 
 
The applicant also submitted a June 10, 2008 email expressing her disagreement with the 
performance evaluation.  In an earlier email that day, the applicant told the CO that she thought 
he  had  different  standards  for  reservists  and  active  duty  members.    The  CO  responded  to  this 
email by stating that he did not tell the applicant that he agreed that the OER did not reflect her 
performance.  He stated that his disagreement was that the applicant’s negative relationship with 
the XO and her disenchantment with the Coast Guard would bring us to this point.  He told the 
applicant that he valued her skills but needed her to channel them in all command areas.  The CO 
noted that he had asked the XO to be receptive to any amplifying information the applicant chose 
to present in her meeting with the XO, and the three of them would have a follow-up meeting.   
 
 
the XO to discuss the OER without a neutral party present.   
 
 
On June 25, 2008, the applicant sent the CO an email stating that she thought it best to 
have  a  neutral  party  at  the  meeting  with  the  XO.    She  also  asked  for  clarification  on  the  CO’s 
expectations  for  the  meeting.    In  this  regard,  she  stated  that  she  asked  the  XO  upon  reporting 
about OERs, and he told her that they write their own.  So, she wrote and submitted her own on 
March  7.    She  stated  that  she  wrote  her  branch  chief’s  OERs  to  the  6  block  for  nearly  every 
category with  minimal  revision from  either the CO or XO.  She stated that  at  no time between 
the submission of her OER and the signed copy appearing on her desk on June 10 did the XO ask 

On June 11, 2008, the applicant told the CO that she was not comfortable meeting with 

 

 

her  for  additional  information.    The  applicant  stated  that  during  the  marking  period,  the  XO 
counseled  her  in  two  areas:    writing  and  teamwork.    She  stated  that  at  no  point  during  the 
marking  period  did  the  XO  indicate  that  she  was  not  exceeding  the  4  criteria  in  the  using 
resources, adaptability, professional competence or workplace climate categories.  She stated that 
she was not advised that the CO was unhappy with her judgment, responsibility, or professional 
presence.    She also wanted to discuss with the CO his comment about using the OER to get her 
attention  and  his  comment  about  how  her  negative  relationship  with  the  XO  has  hurt  the 
command. 
 
 
the following: 
 

On June 25, 2008, the CO replied to the applicant’s email of the same date.  He offered 

Traditionally, one approaches their CO with a request to discuss their OER and an 
appropriate time is set aside.  Since you chose a more aggressive method as I was 
leaving for the airport, you necessarily received a shortened counseling session. 
 
I  appreciate  that  this  is  not  a  superlative  OER,  but  neither  is  it  negative.    The 
officer  evaluation  system  does  not  assume  that  a  mark  of  “6”  is  the  baseline.  
Nonetheless,  I  asked  the  XO  to  withdraw  it  from  CG-2  processing  cycle  long 
enough for you and he to discuss it, then come see me on Monday, 16 June.  You 
are continuing to put conditions on how you will work with the XO.  I urge you 
again to sit down with the XO and explain to him why you deserve higher marks 
in certain areas.  I’ll wait until next Thursday until I process the OER through the 
reviewer.   

 

On June 25, 2008, the applicant sent the XO an email stating that she was at a loss as to 
what  additional  information  she  was  expected  to  provide.    She  wrote  that  “I  will,  however, 
apologize for causing you stress.” 

 
The  applicant  submitted  an  email  from  her  to  the  XO  and  the  XO’s  reply  in  which  he 
noted their discussion on June 27, 2008 about the OER and that she had submitted supplemental 
material.  The XO stated that in light of that discussion and supplemental material he raised her 
marks from 4 to 6 in using resources and from 4 to 5 in professional competence.  The reporting 
officer raised one mark from 5 to 6 in judgment.   
 
Disputed OER 
 

The  disputed  OER  states  that  the  applicant  reported  to  the  unit  on  June  8,  2007,  as  the 
Chief  of  the  Intelligence  Division.    On  the  OER,  which  is  in  the  applicant’s  record,  her  marks 
were  4s  in  adaptability,  writing,  teamwork,  workplace  climate;  5s  in  results/effectiveness, 
professional  competence,  directing  others,  responsibility,  professional  presence;  6s  in  planning 
and  preparedness,  using  resources,  speaking  and  listening,  looking  out  for  others,  developing 
others, evaluations, initiative, judgment, health and well-being; and a mark in the middle block 
of  7  (with  7  being  highest)  on  the  comparison  scale.    The  mark  in  the  middle  block  on  the 
comparison  scale  described  the  applicant  as  an  “excellent  performer;  highly  recommended  for 
positions of increased responsibility.  The comments supporting the marks were not unfavorable. 

 

 

 

Statements Submitted by the Applicant 
 

Intelligence  directly 

from 

 
1. The  applicant  submitted  a  statement  from  a  SK1  who  worked  for  the  XO  during  his 
tenure at the unit.  She stated that many of the duties she performed were above those of her rate 
and  were  the  responsibility  of  the  XO.    She  listed  eight  functions  that  she  handled  that  should 
have been handled by the XO.   
 
 
2.    The  applicant  also  submitted  a  statement  from  LCDR  B  who  was  assigned  as  the 
logistics  division  officer  during  the  period  covered  by  the  disputed  OER.    He  stated  that  he 
reported directly to the XO, as did the applicant.  He stated that the applicant was respected by 
ICC personnel; that she was extremely knowledgeable; and that she freely counseled others. He 
also  stated  that  “[t]he  workplace  climate  not  only  drastically  improved  in  .  .  .  [the]  watch 
division,  but  also  improved  between  [the  intelligence  coordination  center]  and  [the]  office  of 
resulting 
Naval 
leadership, 
professionalism, and dedication to duty.   
 

[the  applicant’s]  extraordinary 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On June 18, 2010, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast  Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny relief to the applicant, as recommended by 
the  Commander,  Personnel  Service  Center  (PSC)  in  a  memorandum  attached  to  the  advisory 
opinion as Enclosure (1).  In recommending denial, PSC stated that the applicant admitted in her 
statement that she refused to  support her supervisor, the  XO,  and routinely  reported directly  to 
the CO.  In this regard, PSC noted that the applicant told the CO that she resented working for a 
Coast  Guard Reserve officer  whose  administrative skills  were not commensurate with her own 
abilities;  the  applicant  sent  an  email  directly  to  the  CO  proposing  to  reorganize  the  unit’s 
leadership and management  structure  and converting the XO position  into  a logistics position; 
the applicant told the CO that even though she did not have “the discussion” with the XO that he 
wanted, she would keep sniping out of his office and attempt to work on the perception that she 
did not support the XO;  and the applicant told the CO that his command was not large enough 
for two O-5s with their personality and experience differences.   
 
 
In  regard  to  the  above,  PSC  stated  that  the  role  of  any  subordinate  in  a  military 
organization is to assist the supervisor in meeting unit goals and objectives and there is nothing 
in regulations that prohibits a reservist from supervising active duty personnel.    PSC stated that 
proposing  reorganization  is  not  unusual,  but  bypassing  your  immediate  supervisor  is  poor 
protocol  in  any  situation,  especially  considering  the  XO  is  responsible  for  providing  comment 
and forwarding such requests to the CO for consideration.  PSC noted that the reporting officer 
wrote  in  a  declaration  that  the  applicant  was  never  able  to  give  more  and  her  actions  led  to  a 
schism, leading some junior officers to take sides.  PSC further stated the following: 
 

The  applicant  alleges  the  personality  conflict  between  her  and  the  executive 
officer was the primary reason for her lower than normal OER.  Demonstrative of 
her inability to work with the [XO], the applicant provided the [CO] with several 
reasons  why  she  was  unable  to  be  joined  at  the  hip  to  the  [XO].   The  applicant 

 

 

 
 

cites  her  general  mistrust,  disagreement  with  his  leadership  and  management 
philosophies,  and  her  ability  to  successfully  complete  her  job  and  obtain 
mentoring without the [XO’s] assistance.  The reporting officer generally concurs 
with this assessment and points to the personality conflict as a factor that reduced 
her performance below what he expects from a senior Coast Guard officer.  [PSC] 
believes  the  applicant’s  unwillingness  to  work  with  the  [XO]  was  a  leadership 
issue perpetuated by the applicant despite the [CO’s] attempts to mentor her.     

Upon  conclusion  of  the  reporting  period  and  before  the  OER  was  signed  by  the 
reviewer, the applicant expressed to the reporting officer her dismay with the draft 
OER.    Per  policy,  the  applicant  should  have  sought  counseling  from  the 
supervisor,  but  instead  she  pursued  the  reporting  officer  who  coordinated  a 
counseling  session  between  the  applicant  and  the  supervisor.    The  applicant 
during this OER counseling session presented additional performance that she felt 
needed to be documented in the OER.   
 

  # 

 

 

# 

# 
 

Though  this  report  was  not  a  “glowing”  evaluation  [as  denoted  by  the  reporting 
officer]  the  reporting  officer  and  supervisor  exercised  due  diligence  when 
formulating  their  respective  sections.    Per  policy,  the  reviewer  had  the  option  to 
return the OER to the rating chain for correction, but the reviewer instead certified 
the report as an accurate assessment.  CG PSC believes the rating chain exercised 
due diligence by taking actions to ensure all performance was considered and the 
applicant was evaluated against the standards . . .   
 
The  applicant  provides  past  evaluations  as  evidence  the  disputed  OER  was  less 
about  performance  and  more  about  a  personality  conflict.    CG  PSC  avers  that 
supervisors  and  reporting  officers  are  instructed  under  policy  to  “compare  the 
officer’s  performance  against  the  standards—not  to  other  officers  and  not  to  the 
same  officer  in  a  previous  reporting  period.”    Each  evaluation  is  a  stand  alone 
document  designed  to  capture  performance  within  a  prescribed  time  frame.    CG 
PSC believes the OER content presents a factual account of the performance that 
occurred during the period.     
 
The  submission  requirements  surrounding  this  OER  indicate  the  rating  chain’s 
failure  to  adhere  to  promulgated  submission  timelines.    The  OER  was  dated  as 
received  by  CG  PSC-opm  on  27  January  2009,  nearly  232  days  later  than  the 
required  submission  date.    Though  an  important  point,  the  failure  to  submit  on 
time does not  in  the present  case diminish CG PSC’s opinion that the 31 March 
2008 OER is valid.   

 
PSC  concluded  by  stating  that  the  rating  chain  carried  out  its  responsibilities  in 
 
accordance  with  the  Personnel  Manual;  the  applicant  provided  no  information  that  merits  the 

 

 

removal of the disputed OER; and the applicant provided no evidence that indicated the conflict 
with the XO manifested itself in the disputed OER.   
 
Rating Chain Statements 
 

1.  In  a  statement  obtained  and  submitted  by  PSC,  the  supervisor  for  the  disputed  OER 
wrote that he remains satisfied that the OER accurately reflects the applicant’s performance.  He 
stated that the rating chain was provided with all of the applicant’s OER input for consideration 
as  the  OER  went  forward  for  signature.    He  stated  that  the  applicant  met  with  the  reporting 
officer  and  reviewer  to  discuss  her  performance  and  the  evaluation.    He  stated  that  he  sees  no 
basis to conclude that an administrative or substantive error occurred in the preparation, review 
or approval of the disputed OER. 

 
2.  The CO who was the reporting officer wrote in his statement that he reviewed Coast 
Guard officer evaluation policy before signing the disputed OER and he reviewed it again after 
the applicant  complained.  He stated that he complied with  Coast  Guard policy.   The CO also 
stated the following: 

 
2.b.     While  [the  applicant]  is  a  very  competent  officer,  her  contributions  to  the 
command  were  limited  by  a  negative  relationship  with  the  [XO].    I  spent  a 
significant amount of time trying to improve this relationship through counseling 
and  mentoring  of  both  parties.    [The  applicant]  contends  that  this  OER  resulted 
from  a  poorly  mismanaged  personality  conflict,  but  refused  then  and  today  to 
accept  any  responsibility  for  it.    Although  she  claims  to  have  received  little 
counseling  or  feedback,  the  documentation  that  [the  applicant]  submitted  .  .  . 
alludes  to  many  discussions.    .  .  .      During  our  post  OER  discussions,  [the 
applicant]  refused  to  accept  that  any  of  those  discussions  were  counseling 
sessions  appropriate  to  senior  officers.    She  did  not  request  a  formal  counseling 
session during the evaluation period.  Additionally, I instructed the [XO] to meet 
with her on numerous occasions and he provided me with verbal feedback of the 
meetings.  I also asked my GS-15 Technical Director to counsel [the applicant] on 
several occasions and he provided me with verbal feedback.   
 
c. Early in the evaluation period, [the applicant] made it very clear to me that she 
resented working for a supervisor who was a Reserve Officer and did not have the 
administrative knowledge that she had acquired as a Deputy Group Commander.  
She also repeatedly expressed disenchantment with the Coast Guard since Sector 
implementation dissolved the boat forces career track and removed any chance of 
her  becoming  a  [CO].    She  constantly  referred  to  her  approaching  retirement  in 
2010.    She  stated  during  one  counseling  session  that  she  should  be  a  Group 
Commander and that taking a Sector Division Officer was demeaning.  
 
d. The negative relationship with the [XO] caused a schism within the command 
with  many  junior  officers  taking  sides.    [The  applicant]  used  minor  mistakes  to 
embarrass  the  [XO]  and  undermine  him  within  her  division.    Several  junior 

 

 

officers from other divisions were uncomfortable and talked directly to me about 
it. 
 
e.  While  this  OER  is  not  a  negative  evaluation,  I  recognize  that  it  is  not  the 
glowing  affirmation  that  Coast  Guard  officers  seek.    After  the  [XO]  forwarded 
[the applicant’s] OER to me, I reviewed Coast Guard OER policy then scheduled 
a  discussion  with  him  to  walk  me  through  each  of  the  marks.      He  was  able  to 
present ample information to convince me that the marks were justified. . . .  The 
[applicant] and I talked about the OER twice, then I asked the [XO] to meet with 
her  and  stretching  OER  fairness  to  the  limit,  determine  if  there  was  additional 
information  not  contained  in  [his]  OER  submission  package  that  would  change 
any of his supervisor’s marks.  After he met with [the applicant], [the XO] and I 
met  again  and  discussed  new  information  that  would  support  changing  several 
marks.    Again,  I  reviewed  Coast  Guard  policy  and  determined  that  it  was 
appropriate  for  me  to  accept  the  adjusted  supervisor  marks  and  adjust  my 
reporting officer marks.   
 

  # 

# 
 

# 

3.    I  considered  [the  applicant]  to  be  a  talented  officer  who  had  the  ability  to 
perform  at  high  levels  and  be  recognized  with  appropriate  evaluations.  
Unfortunately, she allowed a personality conflict to reduce her performance below 
that expected of a commander.   

 
 
3.    The  reviewer  for  the  disputed  OER  wrote  that  the  OER  reflects  a  reasonably 
consistent  portrayal  of  the  performance  and  potential  of  [the  applicant].   The  numerical  scores 
are  consistent  with  the  performance  evaluation  standards  and  fully  supported  by  the  written 
comments.    
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  July  6,  2010,  the  Board  received  the  applicant’s  response  to  the  views  of  the  Coast 

 
 
Guard.  She did not agree with them.  In this regard, she offered the following: 
 

There  was  a  personality  conflict  between  me  and  [the  XO]  and  [the  CO]  was 
aware of it and did nothing to help either of us.  The stress was taking its toll on 
me  physically,  I  mentioned  in  an  e-mail  to  the  CO  that  I  was  having  headaches 
and grinding my teeth.  I asked [the CO] for help in a reassignment, but he never 
responded to that e-mail.  [The CO] says he counseled me, he did not.  He did tell 
me  to  help  the  XO  do  his  job.    [The  CO]  says  the  Technical  Director  .  .  . 
counseled  me,  he  did  not.   [The  technical  director]  did,  however,  agree  I  should 
seek reassignment as soon as possible and he was the architect behind my moving 
to  the  National  Maritime  Intelligence  Center  Staff.  .  .    [The  XO]  counseled  me 
twice, once when he asked me to keep the conflict out of the CO’s office, and the 
second time when he lost his temper with me regarding an e-mail I sent to the CO 

 

 

 

regarding reorganizing the unit.  [The XO] never said anything else about any of 
the performance dimensions on my OER. 
 
I  found  the  OER  signed  by  [the  XO]  and  [the  CO]  under  some  folders  on  my 
desk.  There was no note to come discuss, there were no comments on the input I 
provided.  [The XO] and [the CO] did not make any effort to schedule a meeting 
with me, and yes, I blew it off because their credibility with me was so low, any 
meeting would have been a charade just to say it happened.  My apology to [the 
XO] for causing him stress was sincere, I did not know until that spring he was in 
counseling.        
 
The Coast Guard says I did not take responsibility for my part in this conflict, and 
that is  not  true.   I repeatedly  accepted my role, but  I did  refuse to  cover  up [the 
XO’s]  incompetence,  missteps  were  not  minor,  as  [the  CO]  thinks,  but  were 
causing angst and frustration with the crew.  [The XO] is a very nice person, and I 
bear him no ill will, but I found his actions in many areas embarrassing as another 
commander,  and  I  did  not  think  it  was  my  responsibility  to  help  him  be  a 
commander in the Coast Guard.  
 
[The CO] says that the [junior officers] were forced to take sides.  He never told 
me there were issues with the JOs, and I maintain that I was professional and the 
conflict was not as open as [the CO] claims. 
 
The  command  climate  at  the  unit  was  the  worst  I  have  seen  in  all  my  years  of 
active duty, contractor and civilian turnover was very high.  I had already decided 
to retire . . . and [the CO’s] lack of leadership did nothing to inspire me to want to 
stay in the intelligence community or the Coast Guard . . .  I have issues with [the 
CO] not counseling me, and, admitting that he used the OER to get my attention.  
.  .  .    [T]hat  is  not  what  an  OER  is  for!    After  the  CO  made  that  statement,  I 
discussed  the  situation  with  an  attorney  and  considered  doing  an  Article  138 
claiming the CO had different standards for active duty and reservists.  As the first 
step in the 138 process, I had a meeting with the CO to address my concerns and 
he said  I did not play well as a victim.  He asked me what I wanted and I said I 
needed  to  leave.    He  said  he  had  considered  asking  his  friend,  the  CO  of  the 
Personnel Command to move me, but he did not want to be seen as transferring a 
problem.    He  supported  my  TAD  to  DHS  and  to  the  National  Maritime 
Intelligence Center.   

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 applicant requested an oral hearing before the Board.  The Chair, acting pursuant 
to  33  C.F.R.  § 52.51,  denied  the  request  and  recommended  disposition  of  the  case  without  a 
hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommendation. 

 
3.    The  applicant  alleged  that  the  disputed  OER  does  not  accurately  portray  her 
performance, but rather, it resulted from a poorly managed personality conflict she had with the 
XO.  The applicant provided little evidence suggesting that the XO had a problem with her, but 
significant evidence suggesting that she had a problem with the XO.  In this regard, the evidence 
suggests that the applicant had a problem with the XO because of his Reserve background and, 
in her opinion, his alleged incompetence.  As the Coast Guard stated, the fact that the XO was a 
member  of  a  Reserve  component  did  not  disqualify  him  from  holding  an  XO  assignment  on 
active duty.  As the subordinate, it was the applicant’s responsibility to adjust to the management 
style of her supervisor.  With regard to the applicant’s complaint that the XO was incompetent, 
the  Board  notes  that  her  example  of  the  XO’s  incompetence  was  that  he  had  “other  people” 
doing his administrative tasks allegedly because he did not know how to do them. Even if true, 
the lack of familiarity with every aspect of a job does not render one incompetent.  As XO, he 
had  the  authority  to  delegate,  which  appears  to  be  what  he  did.    Further,  if  the  XO  was  not 
assigning his administrative tasks to the applicant or to the people who worked directly for her, 
the Board fails to understand the applicant’s problem with the delegations.   The CO described 
the applicant’s actions as undermining the XO at every opportunity and using minor mistakes to 
embarrass him.  Therefore, it appears to the Board that the applicant’s problems with the XO led 
to tension between them. However, workplace tension between supervisor and subordinate does 
not  necessarily  mean  that  a  supervisor  is  biased  against  a  subordinate  or  that  the  supervisor 
cannot fairly and objectively evaluate an officer’s performance.  See BCMR No. 2000-037.  The 
applicant did not offer any specific evidence to prove that her marks should have been higher for 
the  period  under  review;  nor  did  she  present  any  specific  evidence  to  prove  that  any  of  the 
comments in the OER were inaccurate.  The Board finds insufficient evidence that a personality 
conflict, actual or perceived, caused the rating chain to rate the applicant unfairly in the disputed 
OER.     
 
4.    Even  if  the  applicant  had  shown  that  a  personality  conflict  existed,  she  would  still 
need to show that the personality conflict manifested itself through misstatements or inaccuracies 
in  the  OER.  In  this  case,  the  statement  from  an  SK1  and  LCDR  B  do  not  prove  that  the 
applicant’s performance was better than as described in the OER.  The SK1 wrote only about the 
specific  tasks  she  performed  for  the  XO,  and  LCDR  B  wrote  about  the  applicant’s  leadership 
skills, background, and mentoring skills.  However, he never states which marks or comments in 
the OER he believed were inaccurate or how or why she should have higher marks.  On the other 
hand, the supervisor, reporting officer, and reviewer have  reaffirmed the  accuracy  of the OER.  
All  three  members  of  the  rating  chain  stood  by  the  performance  evaluation.    Because  the 
applicant’s  previous  and  subsequent  evaluations  were  better  than  the  disputed  OER  does  not 
prove  that  her  performance  for  the  period  under  review  was  better  than  as  described  in  the 
disputed OER.  The applicant has not shown that even if a personality conflict existed with the 
XO, it resulted in an inaccurate assessment of her performance for the period under review.   As 
stated above, she has not shown how her performance was better than indicated in the disputed 
OER. 

 

 

 

5.  The applicant’s  contention that she was not  counseled during or after  the evaluation 
period is without merit.  She admitted in her submissions that several of her discussions with the 
CO and XO could  be considered counseling.   For instance, the CO asked her to  work with  the 
XO.  Rather than following the CO’s direction in this regard, she told the CO that the XO’s job 
was not a training billet, and refused to work with him. Subsequently, the CO told her he wanted 
more from her when she told the CO that a discussion with the XO led only to her agreement to 
keep the sniping out of the CO’s office.  Another time, the XO told her that she was not a team 
player after she sent an email to the CO, recommending a reorganization of the unit that included 
abolishing  the  XO’s  position.  The  applicant  also  admitted  in  one  of  her  emails  that  the  XO 
counseled her about her writing (the tone of her emails).  These discussions with the XO and CO 
are considered counseling or feedback because they put the applicant on notice that the command 
was not pleased with her working relationship with the XO and its potential impact on the unit.  
Also, contrary to her contention that there was no end of period counseling about the OER, the 
Board notes there was a discussion with the XO following her receipt of the OER, because the 
CO  directed  it,  and  after  that  discussion  and  her  submission  of  additional  information,  the  XO 
raised  a  couple  of  her  marks.    There  was  also  an  end  of  period  discussion  with  the  CO  and 
reviewer.    All  of  the  above  instances  constitute  feedback.      Article  10.A.1.5.  of  the  Personnel 
Manual  states  that  no  specific  form  or  forum  is  prescribed  for  performance  feedback  and  it 
occurs  whenever  a  subordinate  receives  advice  or  observations  related  to  their  performance  in 
any evaluation area.  This provision further states that if the feedback is not fully understood, it is 
the  reported-on  officer’s  responsibility  to  immediately  seek  clarification  and  the  rating  chain’s 
responsibility to provide it.  Having served as a deputy group commander and other supervisory 
positions in previous assignments, the Board is persuaded that the applicant understood how to 
obtain  clarification  if  the  counseling  or  feedback  she  received  was  not  adequate.    Therefore,  if 
the  applicant  did  not  understand  what  the  CO  meant  by  “help  the  applicant  do  his  job”  she 
should have asked.  If she did not understand what the XO meant by not being a team player she 
should have ensured that she understood.   If she wanted clear guidance on what she could do to 
eliminate  or  minimize  the  “personality  conflict”  with  the  XO  (other  than  a  transfer)  she  could 
have asked. The applicant was counseled during and at the end of the reporting period.   

 
6.    The  applicant  seems  to  be  most  dissatisfied  with  the  marks  of  4  in  adaptability, 
writing,  teamwork,  and  workplace  climate.    Her  decision  to  ignore  the  CO’s  direction  to  work 
with the XO, the confrontational tone of her emails to the CO and XO, and according to the CO, 
her  constant  undermining  of  the  XO  suggest  that  the  4s  are  not  erroneous.    Although  the 
applicant complained that the rating chain never told her that she was not performing above a 4 
in certain areas, she offered no evidence that she sought any counseling about her performance, 
but rather her emails show constant complaints about the XO. Further, contrary to the applicant’s 
contention  that  marks  of  4  are  not  good  marks, 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.  As  stated  above,  the  applicant  offered  insufficient  evidence  that  her 
performance  during  the  reporting  period  mandated  marks  higher  than  those  assigned  in  the 
disputed OER.     
 

7.  The applicant complained that the disputed OER was submitted three months into the 
next reporting period.  While Article 10.A.2.h.2.a. of the Personnel Manual states that the OER 

 

 

should  be  received  by  PSC  not  later  than  45  days  after  the  end  of  the  reporting  period,  the 
Deputy  General  Counsel  for  the  Department  of  Transportation  ruled  in  Docket  No.  84-96  that 
“simple time delay in submission of an OER does not by itself constitute prejudicial error.”  She 
stated  that  the  question  is  “whether  the  delay  led  to  material  inaccuracies  in  the  report,  or 
otherwise created errors or injustices.”  Since the applicant failed to prove that the disputed OER 
is inaccurate or that she was not counseled during or at the end of the reporting period, the Board 
finds that the delay in submitting the OER was not prejudicial.     

 
8.    In  summary,  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 applicant has not submitted evidence that meets this standard because she 
has presented insufficient evidence that the marks or comments are inaccurate, or that the alleged 
personality  conflict  manifested  itself  in  the  OER,  and  no  evidence  of  a  prejudicial  violation  of 
statute or regulation.   
 

9.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied because she has failed to prove 

an error or injustice on the disputed OER.  

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] 

 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  her  military 

record is denied.  

ORDER 

 

 

 
 
 Lillian Cheng 

                     

 

    

 

 
 Randall J. Kaplan 

 

 

   
 James E. McLeod