DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No.  2011-063 
 
 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  application  upon 
receipt  of  the  applicant’s  completed  application  on  December  24,  2010,  and  subsequently 
prepared the final decision 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  September  8,  2011,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST, ALLEGATION, AND EVIDENCE 

 
 
 The applicant asked the Board to correct her record by removing her officer evaluation 
report (OER) for the period from June 1, 2007 to April 30, 2008 and replacing it with an OER for 
continuity purposes only.1  She alleged that she was not observed for 165 days of the reporting 
period  due  to  her  extended  absence  for  hospitalization  and  rehabilitation  after  sustaining  a 
traumatic head injury in a motor vehicle accident.   
 
In  addition  to  her  DD  149,  the  applicant  submitted  a  letter  from  the  Office  of 
 
Servicemember’s  Group  Life  Insurance  showing  that  she  had  been  awarded  $25,000  on  her 
traumatic injury claim.  She also submitted a copy of the disputed OER. 
 
Disputed OER  
 

In  the  supervisor’s  portion  of  the  OER,  the  applicant  received  marks  of  5  in  each 
category,  except  for  marks  of  4  in  the  directing  others,  workplace  climate  and  evaluations 
                                                 
1    A  continuity  OER  is  one  in  which  only  section  2  of  the  OER  form  is  completed  describing  the  reported-on 
officer’s  duties  and  explaining  the  reason  for  the  continuity  OER.    All  other  areas  on  the  OER  are  marked  non-
observed.  Article 10.A.3.a.5.d. of the Personnel Manual.  Continuity OERs are submitted in cases where an OER is 
required  by  regulation  but  full  documentation  is  impractical,  impossible  to  obtain,  or  does  not  meet  officer 
evaluation system goals. See Article 10.A.3.a.5., which also provides a list of instances in which a continuity OER 
must or may be submitted.   

 

 

categories.  The supervisor wrote the following comments, among others:  “Interpersonal skills 
in  terms  of  tone  &  frequency  of  communications  w/staff/Supervisor  improving,  but  initially 
strained/limited  following  return  to  duty  status.    Looking  forward  to  greater  interaction,  better 
dialogue & team building w/in team.” 
 

In the reporting officer’s section of the OER, the applicant  received marks of 5 in  each 
performance  category  except  for  a  4  in  initiative.    The  reporting  officer  does  not  mention  her 
absence from duty in this portion of the OER.   
 

On  the  comparison  scale  in  section  9  of  the  OER,  the  reporting  officer  ranked  the 
applicant  in  the 4th highest  of 7 blocks, which described her as  a “good  performer;  give tough, 
challenging assignments.”  This section of an OER is where the reporting officer compared the 
applicant with others of the same grade he has known in his career.   
 

In  section  10  (potential)  of  the  disputed  OER,  the  reporting  officer  described  the 

applicant’s potential as follows; 
 

[The  applicant]  is  an  intelligent,  highly  motivated  officer  extraordinarily 
committed  to  the  CG  &  job  performance.    She  faced  exceptional  challenges 
during  this  period,  returning  after  5  months  to  a  dramatically  changed 
organization, a new position & rank, & expanded responsibilities.   She has done 
a remarkable job of shouldering these new responsibilities & is progressing in all 
areas.    Marked  improvement  in  performance  has  been  noted  since  this  period 
began  and  I  expect  to  see  continued  professional  development/growth  in  the 
future.  The determination shown this period indicates a capacity to overcome all 
obstacles.     

 

The reviewer for the disputed OER added the following comments about the applicant’s 

performance for the period under review: 
 

Concur  with  supervisor  and  reporting  officer’s  marks  and  comments.    [The 
applicant] has shown tremendous determination in returning to active duty status.  
This has been a period of adjustment for [the applicant], and while the marks and 
comments may not favorably compare with past performance, they are indicative 
of  a  member  who  has  faced  an  exceptional  challenge,  and  who  is  currently 
making  strides  toward  meeting  and  surpassing  her  past  performance.    Like  her 
supervisor and reporting officer, I believe she has great potential and that we will 
see much improved performance in the upcoming marking period.   

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  May  4,  2011,  the  Judge Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard  submitted  an 
advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  deny  relief  in  accordance  with  a  memorandum 
from the Commander, Personnel Service Center (PSC).   
 

 

 

PSC stated that all parties agree that there were 165 days in which the applicant was not 
observed.  He noted that during the period the applicant was on sick/convalescent leave, which is 
not  mentioned  in  the  OER  because  comments  about  an  officer’s  physical  or  psychological 
condition are prohibited.  PSC noted that although the applicant was not observed for 165 days, 
she was observed for 200 days of the reporting period.  In this regard, PSC stated the following: 
 

The  amount  of  time  that  the  applicant  was  observed  provided  sufficient 
information  and  adequate  observations  to  render  a  judgment  on  the  applicant’s 
performance and conduct.  The marks and comments assigned to the performance 
dimensions accurately painted a succinct picture of performance.  The reviewer as 
required  ensured  the  supervisor  and  reporting  officer  adequately  executed  their 
responsibilities and required documentation to justify the performance evaluation.   
Additionally,  the  Reviewer  stated  in  his  declaration  “we  believe  that  this  report 
did, in fact, document the state of her performance at that time.”   

 
 
PSC  stated  that  the  applicant’s  rating  chain  carried  out  its  responsibilities  in  preparing 
and submitting the applicant’s OER in accordance with the Personnel Manual, and no evidence 
has been presented to substantiate any error or injustice.   
 
 
PSC  stated  that  although  the  language  that  stated  the  reason  why  the  applicant  was  not 
observed  for  165  days  was  removed  from  the  OER,  she  still  has  the  option  of  communicating 
with future selections boards and can explain the reason why she was not observed for 165 days 
of the reporting period.     
 
Supervisor’s Statement 
 
 
PSC  obtained  a  statement  from  the  supervisor  for  the  disputed  OER.    The  supervisor 
stated  that  “The  OER  .  .  .  offers  no  explanation  for  the  [applicant’s]  absence.    He  stated  that 
“[b]ased on conversations with [the applicant] prior to her submittal of this request to the Board 
[for] Corrections,  I believe her intent  was to  have an explanation for the  absence placed in  her 
record.”    He explained that he consulted with PSC (opm) Officer Evaluation Branch about the 
applicant’s  situation  and  that  the  OER  was  prepared  in  accordance  with  that  guidance.    The 
supervisor further stated the following: 
 

In preparing the OER, I also consulted with Captain [M], then CG-11d, in regard 
to  addressing the absence due to  the recovery time and medical  treatment.  As a 
result of those conversations my original OER submittal contained the words “due 
to  extended  hospitalization”  as  a  means  of  explaining  the  long  absence  while 
avoiding details of her medical condition.  After the OER was submitted to PSC 
(opm),  the  Officer  Evaluation  Branch  raised  concerns  about  any  mention  of 
hospitalization.   As  a  consequence  my  original  explanation  for  the  absence  was 
redacted and the absence was left  unexplained within the context of the OER. A 
similar  comment  by  her  Reviewer  in  regards  to  “following  her  hospitalization” 
was redacted at the same time.   
  

 

 

 

Reviewer’s Statement 
 
 
the applicant’s rating chain for the disputed OER.  He wrote the following: 
 

PSC obtained a statement from the reviewer, who was the only Coast Guard member of 

In my position as Executive Assistant, I interacted with [the applicant] on several 
occasions prior to her automobile accident.  Additionally, I was familiar with the 
circumstances  of  her  mishap,  closely  following  her  rehabilitation  and  return  to 
work.    Upon  receiving  her  OER  for  the  period  in  question  from  her  reporting 
officer,  I  was  surprised  to  see  the  downturn  in  documented  performance.    I 
queried  her  reporting  officer  and  requested  documentation  to  justify  the 
performance  evaluation.    I  was  provided  with  written  work  and  anecdotal 
information  which  showed  that  she  was  not  performing  at  the  level  prior  to  her 
mishap.  Her ability to form ideas, clearly articulate issues and recommendations 
was not at the level of her previous reporting period.  After extensive discussions 
with  her  rating  chain  and  CGPC-OPM-3,  we  determined  that  the  purpose  of  the 
OES is to accurately document performance of the reported-on officer during the 
reporting period.  We believed that this report did, in fact, document the state of 
her performance at that time.  
 
In accordance with paragraph 10.A.4.C.1.g. of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual 
(COMDTINST M1000.6A) “sick leave” is  an appropriate event  to  document [in 
block  1.h.  Days  not  Observed]  on  the  OER.  Therefore  I  stand  by  my  original 
decision to accurately document [the applicant’s] performance and absence from 
her assigned duties; I recommend the subject OER remain in her record.     

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
for a response.  The Board did not receive a reply from the applicant.   

On May 6, 2011, the Board sent a copy of the views of the Coast Guard to the applicant 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 

 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant's 

1.  The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of title 10 

military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission and applicable law: 
 
 
of the United States Code.  The application was timely.   
 
 
2.    The  applicant  has  not  demonstrated  that  the  Coast  Guard  committed  an  error  by 
preparing and submitting a regular OER for the period under review.   In this regard, the Board 
notes  that  PSC  correctly  redacted  any  mention  of  the  applicant’s  165-day  hospitalization  from 
the disputed OER because Article 10.A.4.f. of the Personnel Manual states that members of the 
rating  chain  shall  not  mention  any  medical  or  psychological  conditions,  whether  factual  or 
speculative.  In addition, Article 10.A.4.c.1.g. states that the OER shall account for the days not 

 

 

observed,  which  includes  those  taken  for  sick  leave.    The  rating  chain  correctly  noted  the 
applicant’s 165 non-observed days in section 1.h. of the disputed OER. 
 
 
3.    Although  the  applicant  was  not  observed  for  165  days  of  the  reporting  period,  the 
Personnel  Manual  does  not  authorize  a  command  to  submit  a  continuity  OER  under  the 
circumstances presented here.  Under Article 10.A.3.a.5.b. of the Personnel Manual, a command 
may submit a continuity OER for an active duty LCDR, such as the applicant, when the reporting 
period  is  92  days  or  fewer  and  there  has  been  little  opportunity  to  observe  the  officer’s 
performance, when the officer is separating from active duty within 18 months and has met the 
standard of performance during the reporting period, or when a waiver has been authorized by 
PSC to extend a continuity OER to an officer’s separation date.  The applicant’s situation did not 
fall within these parameters since the reporting period was longer than 92 days and she was not 
separating from active duty. 
   
 
guidance for officers who are unable to fully perform due to illness, injury, pregnancy, etc.: 
 

4.  However, Article 10.A.2.b.2.j. of the Personnel Manual provides the following OER 

Periodically officers may experience circumstances due to a temporary condition 
which  result  in  a  limited  opportunity  to  perform.    These  circumstances  may 
involve  specific  performance  restrictions  (e.g.,  those  imposed  by  a  medical 
authority),  which  require  restructuring  or  reassignment  of  duties.    While  no 
preferential treatment shall be given, commanding officers shall ensure that these 
individuals do not receive below standard evaluations strictly as a consequence of 
these circumstances.    

 

While  Article  10.A.2.b.2.j.  recognizes  that  there  will  be  instances  when  temporary 
conditions may limit an officer’s opportunity to perform, it does not authorize the submission of  
a  continuity  OER  under  such  circumstances.    The  provision  does  require  that  COs  ensure  that 
individuals do not receive below standard evaluations solely because of their limited opportunity 
to perform.  The reviewer for the disputed OER complied with this provision.   

 
5.  In this regard, the reviewer for the disputed OER, the only Coast Guard officer in the 
applicant’s  rating  chain  (the supervisor and reporting officer  were  civilians), noted that  he was 
aware  of  the  applicant’s  mishap  and  that  he  made  a  special  effort  to  ensure  that  the  applicant 
received  an  accurate  performance  appraisal  for  the  period.  He  stated  that  the  applicant’s 
performance, after her return to work, declined from previous reporting periods in that her ability 
to form ideas and to clearly articulate issues and make recommendations was not at her previous 
level.    The  reviewer  stated  that  the  OER  was  an  accurate  assessment  of  the  applicant’s 
performance  for  the  period  under  review.    The  Board  notes  that  the  OER  contains  no  below 
standard marks, and the comments are mostly complimentary.   
 

6.  While the Personnel Manual does not authorize continuity OERs under circumstances 
similar  to  the  applicant’s,  it  does  permit  members  of  the  rating  chain  to  give  a  mark  of  non-
observed  in  a  dimension  if  the  supervisor  or  reporting  officer  has  insufficient  information  on 
which  to  provide  a  mark  or  if  observations  are  believed  inadequate  on  which  to  render  a 
judgment  on  an  officer’s  performance.    Articles  10A.4.c.4.c.  &  10.A.4.c.7.c.  of  the  Personnel 

 

 

Manual.    However,  as  PSC  noted,  although  the  applicant  was  absent  for  165  days  of  the 
reporting  period,  the  approximately  200  days  of  observed  performance  provided  a  sufficient 
opportunity for the rating chain to observe and evaluate her performance.   

 
7.    Additionally,  the  applicant  makes  no  allegation  that  the  disputed  OER  contains 
erroneous marks and comments, but only that she was on convalescent leave for 165 days of the 
reporting period.  While language could not be included in the OER to explain that the applicant 
was hospitalized and underwent rehabilitation for a brain injury during her 165-day absence, she 
has  the  right  to  communicate  with  future  selection  boards  and  to  explain  the  reason  for  her 
absence, as well as the impact the absence might have had on limiting her ability to perform for 
the period under review.   

 
8.    Accordingly,  the  applicant  has  not  shown  an  error  or  injustice  with  respect  to  the 

disputed OER.  Her request should be denied.   
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 

 

 

ORDER 

 

The application of XXXXXXXXXXXXX, USCG, for correction of her military record is 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 Julia Andrews 

 

 

 
 
 Robert S. Johnson, Jr. 

 

 

 
 James H. Martin 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

denied.