DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2012-084 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 

 

 

 
 

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 February 29, 2012, 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  August  16,  2012,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
 The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  modify  his  officer  evaluation  report  (OER)  for  the 
period  from  June  14,  2008  to  June  30,  2009  (disputed  OER)  by  making  the  following 
corrections: 
 

Raise the mark in “communication skills” from 4 to 5; 
Raise the mark in “workplace climate” from 4 to 6;  
Raise the mark in “responsibility” from 3 to 5; 
Raise the mark in “professional presence” from 4 to 5; and  
Raise the mark on the block 9 comparison scale from the middle block (fourth) to the 5th 
highest block. 

The applicant also asked that the disputed OER be corrected by removing  the following 

 
 
two comments: 
 

“Failed to adapt to new role as mbr of Wardroom bridging gap [between] officers 
&  crew;  counseled  on  repeated  exclusive  relationships  w/sub[ordinates”  (in 
section 8 of disputed OER). 
 
“Anticipate  promotion  recommendation  next  period  upon  strengthening  in 
personal and professional qualities” ( n section 10 of disputed OER). 

 

 

The applicant alleged that the disputed marks and comments are inaccurate because they 

 
were  assigned  based  upon  the  CO’s  undue  influence  on  the  supervisor  and  reporting  officer.     
The applicant stated that in May 2009, his supervisor showed him the OER that he intended to 
submit to the reporting officer.  The applicant stated that the supervisor explained to him that the 
supervisor and reporting officer were trying to “fabricate” an OER that the CO would approve.  
The applicant further stated on this subject: 
 

I  was  a  little  confused  with  this;  [the  supervisor]  explained  the  reason  was 
because  of  the  conversation  I  had  with  the  CO  nine  months  earlier  about  my 
relationship with the Chief’s Mess.  I explained to [my supervisor] that I hoped to 
be evaluated based on my good performance and not to diminish my performance 
via  my  OER  just  so  it  would  meet  the  expectations  of  the  CO.    Prior  to  [my 
supervisor] departing PCS, he counseled and provided me with an OER in which 
he  stated  “this  is  the  OER  I  submitted  to  the  XO  for  you.”    [The  applicant 
attached that alleged OER to his BCMR application.]  
 
On or about July 2009, both [the supervisor] and [reporting officer] departed [the 
cutter].  I was not given an opportunity to observe my OER that they provided to 
the CO prior to their departure. 
 
When  the  OER  in  question  was  presented  to  me  for  signature,  [my  new 
supervisor] called me into his stateroom.  I read through the OER, and there were 
major  discrepancies  to  which  I  asked  for  clarification  .  .  .  [My  supervisor] 
explained to me there was nothing he could do by way of altering the OER since 
he had no part in it originally.  I refused to sign the OER and requested to speak 
with the new [reporting officer].  [My reporting officer] repeated the same thing: 
he  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  OER  submission  so  he  could  offer  no  help  with 
rectifying any discrepancies that I noted.  I formally requested to be counseled by 
the CO who was the Reviewer.  [The reporting officer] came to me and told me 
that  the  CO  refused  to  talk  to  me  or  counsel  me  on  my  OER.    [The  reporting 
officer] told me I was required to sign the OER.  At first I did not want to sign the 
OER  since  it  was  erroneous.   Again,  I  was  told  by  [the  reporting  officer]  that  it 
was required that I sign the OER.  At this point, I felt any further refusal to sign 
would  be  considered  insubordinate  behavior  and  feared  reprisal.    I  signed  the 
OER as I was ordered.   
 
The applicant asserted he has reason to believe that the CO instructed the supervisor and 
 
reporting  officer  to  change  their  marks,  which  is  a  violation  of  the  Personnel  Manual.    The 
applicant stated that there is a history of low evaluation marks from the CO during the period in 
question.  He stated that three other officers from the cutter had corrections made to their OERs 
because  of  a  determination  that  the  command  had  not  followed  the  Personnel  Manual  in 
preparing those OERs.   
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  or  about  June  22,  2012,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard 
submitted  an  advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  grant  relief  in  accordance  with  a 
memorandum submitted by the Commander, Personnel Service Center (PSC).   
 
PSC  stated  that  under  the  officer  evaluation  system  (OES),  the  rating  chain  provides  a 
 
timely  and  accurate  assessment  of  an  officer’s  performance  through  a  system  of  multiple 
evaluators  and  reviewers.    The  responsibility  for  evaluating  the  applicant  rested  with  the 
supervisor, the reporting officer and the reviewer.  
 

Prior  to  preparing  the  memorandum  in  this  case,  PSC  obtained  statements  from  the 
supervisor, reporting officer, and reviewer for the disputed OER.   PSC stated based upon all of 
the  evidence  including  the  supervisor’s  and  reporting  officer’s  affidavits,  the  supervisor  and 
reporting officer failed to perform their duties  in preparing the disputed OER.     PSC stated the 
following in pertinent part: 
 

The Supervisor changed the mark in “Speaking and Listening” from a “5” 
a.  
to  a  “4”  after  consulting  with  the  reporting  officer  in  hopes  of  providing  an 
evaluation that they felt the “CO [Reviewer] would accept.”  . . .  It is not unusual 
for a member of the rating chain to submit to the next member of the rating chain 
a ‘draft’ version of the OER to review for edits and typos.  This second set of eyes 
should not be used as a means to change an evaluator’s intent.  PSC believes the 
supervisor changed his intended mark of “5” to “4” after discussing the evaluation 
with  the  reporting  officer  in  hopes  of  gaining  the  Reviewer’s  approval.    The 
[reporting officer] stated in his declaration that “I have no facts or knowledge to 
dispute the marks that the [supervisor] assigned for sections 3 thru 5 other than I 
was certain the CO . . . would not approve them.”  PSC believes this violates OES 
policy because the applicant’s OER does not represent ‘independent views’ from 
the rating chain. . . .   
 
 
b. 
The  supervisor  states  in  his  declaration  that  he  intended  to  assign  the 
applicant  a  mark  of  “6”  in  the  “workplace  climate”  performance  dimension,  but 
after  discussions  with  the  [reporting  officer]  he  changed  the  mark  to  a  “4”  in 
hopes  of  gaining  the  reviewer’s  approval.    PSC  believes  that  [the  draft  OER] 
represents  the supervisor’s intended performance evaluation  of the applicant  and 
that the supporting comments support the higher marks . . .    
 
c.  
The  [reporting  officer]  states  in  his  declaration  that  he  believes  the 
applicant deserved a mark of “4” in the “Responsibility” performance dimension 
but  he  was  “influenced  by  the  [reviewer’s]  perception  that  [the  applicant]  was 
engaged in unauthorized relationships and questionable ethical behavior with the 
Chiefs.”    PSC  believes  the  applicant’s  official  evaluation  does  not  represent  an 
independent view from the [reporting officer] . . .   
 

 

 

Likewise, the [reporting officer] alleges that a specific phrase in Block 8’s 
d.  
comments  was  “either  drafted  by  the  CO  [reviewer]  and  forwarded  to  me  or 
influenced by her.” [Footnote omitted.]  PSC believes this phrase “Failed to adapt 
to  new  role  as  mbr  of  Wardroom  bridging  gap  [between]  Officers  &  crew; 
counseled on repeated exclusive relationships w/[subordinates]”  does not reflect 
the view of the [reporting officer] conveyed in his declaration [to PSC].   
 
The  [reporting  officer]  also  states  in  his  declaration  that  he  would  have 
e. 
assigned  a  mark  of  “5”  to  the  applicant  for  the  “Professional  Presence” 
performance dimension but felt a “4” was the highest mark [the reviewer] would 
allow.”  . . .  PSC believes the [reporting officer] did not provide an independent 
view of the applicant for this performance dimension, and subsequently issued a 
lower mark to improve the likelihood the reviewer approved the evaluation.  
 
A critical job of the [reporting officer] is the block 9 comparison scale for 
f. 
which  the  reporting  officer  compares  the  applicant  to  all  other  CWO3s  the 
reporting officer has known throughout his career.  The reporting officer states in 
his declaration that he believes the applicant deserved a mark of “5” yet he does 
not explain why he assigned a mark of “4.”  PSC opines that the reporting officer 
did  not  accurately  rate  the  applicant  on  the  official  evaluation  given  his  sworn 
statements in his declaration.  
 
g.  
The  reporting  officer  also  states  in  his  declaration  that  he  agrees  that  the 
Block  10  comment  “Anticipate  promotion  recommendation  next  period  upon 
strengthening  in  personal  and  professional  qualities”  should  be  removed.    He 
further comments, “It is my opinion that [the applicant] earned a recommendation 
for promotion and that the comment resulted from previous comments and marks 
from section 8 as influenced by the [reviewer].  A promotion recommendation is 
an optional statement in Block 10.  Block 10 must include a statement to describe 
the  officer’s  ability  to  assume  greater  leadership  roles  and  responsibilities  for 
which it does in a positive light and neither the applicant not the reporting  officer 
dispute it.  PSC believes the comment does not reflect the views of the reporting 
officer.”    

 
 
PSC  stated  that  prior  to  evaluating  the  applicant  in  the  disputed  OER,  the  reporting 
officer was unduly influenced by the CO in completing three other OERs for officers at the unit.  
PSC stated that in all three instances, the CO directed the reporting officer to change marks.  This 
violated  OES  policy  and  eventually  resulted  in  all  three  records  being  expunged  by  either  the 
PRRB or BCMR board process.  PSC stated that given the CO’s documented subversion of the 
independent  evaluation  process,  it  is  reasonable  to  assume  the  RO  felt  the  applicant’s  report 
would receive similar scrutiny and direction.   
 
 
PSC stated that it believes that the disputed OER contains some inaccuracies and does not 
represent  the  supervisor’s  or  reporting  officer’s  true  appraisal  of  the  applicant’s  performance.  
PSC stated that the reviewer should have noted her views of the applicant’s performance through 
the submission of a reviewer comment page.   

 

 

 
 
PSC concluded its comments by stating that the supervisor and reporting officer failed to 
provide their own independent view of the applicant’s performance.  PSC further concluded that 
the  reviewer  should  have  submitted  a  reviewer  comment  page  to  express  her  view  of  the 
applicant’s  performance,  rather  than  directing  the  rating  chain  to  assign  or  to  change  certain 
marks.  Finally, PSC concluded that there was sufficient information in the declarations from the 
supervisor and reporting officer to correct the disputed OER to accurately reflect his performance 
for the period under review.   PSC recommended the disputed OER be corrected in the following 
manner: 
 

a.   Raise the mark from 4 to 5 in speaking and listening; 
b.  Raise the mark from 4 to 6 in workplace climate. 
c.  Raise the mark from 3 to 4 in responsibility. 
d.   Raise the mark from 4 to 5 in professional presence.  
e.  Remove  the  following  phrase  form  block  8:  “Failed  to  adapt  to  new  role  as  mbr  of 
Wardroom  bridging  the  gap  btwn  Officers  &  crew;  counseled  on  repeated  exclusive 
relationships w/subordinates. 

f.  Change the comparison scale mark in Block 9 from the center (fourth block) to the fifth 

highest block to the right. 

g.  Remove  the  following  phrase  from  block  10  comments:    “Anticipate  promotion 
recommendation next period upon strengthening in personal and professional qualities.”   

  
Supervisor’s Affidavit 
 
  In  addition  to  the  comments  discussed  in  the  advisory  opinion,  the  supervisor  stated  the 
following in pertinent part: 
 

After  I submitted my potion of [the applicant’s] OER,  I  was approached  by [the 
reporting  officer]  who  said  that  he  had  gone  through  this  process  during  this 
marking period with  three Deck Watch  Officer  (DWO) OERs.  He said  the CO  
had sent  back the three DWO OERs with  instructions as to  how to  mark certain 
categories  and  [the  reporting  officer]  suggested  we  come  up  with  an  OER 
submission  for  [the  applicant]  the  CO  would  accept.    So,  I  changed  the  marks  I 
originally submitted to reflect what the CO would accept.   

 
Reporting Officer’s Affidavit 
 
 
In  addition  to  comments  discussed  in  the  advisory  opinion,  the  reporting  officer  stated 
that he supported the applicant’s contention that his assigned marks in “speaking and listening” 
and “workplace climate” should be raised, as originally submitted by his  supervisor.  He stated 
that “I have no facts or knowledge to dispute the marks that the supervisor assigned . . .  other 
than I was certain the commanding officer would not approve of them.”   
 
The reporting officer stated that he previously dealt with the CO on other OERs on which 
 
she directly influenced the marks and comments assigned by supervisors and himself.  He stated 
that he discussed the situation with the supervisor and they agreed to lower the applicant’s marks.   

 

 

 
 
The  reporting  officer  stated  that  with  regard  to  his  portion  of  the  OER,  he  would  have 
assigned a mark of 4 in “Responsibility” if he had not been influenced by the CO.  He admitted 
that the two disputed comments were either written by or influenced by the CO.  The reporting 
officer  also  stated  that  he  agreed  with  the  applicant’s  contention  that  the  4  in  “Professional 
presence” should be raised to 5.  He stated that he believes that he assigned a 4 due to the CO 
influence on the OER.   
 
Reviewer’s Affidavit 
 
 
The reviewer also submitted an affidavit standing by the OER as an accurate assessment 
of the applicant’s performance.  She provided a four- page statement justifying the evaluation in 
the disputed OER.  In conclusion she stated: 
 

I  do  not  concur  with  [the  applicant’s]  characterization  of  the  officer  evaluation 
system during my command.  High performing officers ultimately received orders 
to  Coast  Guard  cutters  as  Commanding  Officers  and  executive  officer;  they 
received  orders  to  flight  school  and  to  special  assignments.    In  addition,  one 
officer was in-zone reordered at a promotion board.  These officers were marked 
with the same integrity to the OES as [the applicant] was marked.   

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
with them.   

On  July  29,  2012,  the  applicant  responded  to  the  views  of  the  Coast  Guard  and  agreed 

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 alleged that the disputed marks and comments on the OER under review 
are  inaccurate  because  they  do  not  reflect  his  supervisor’s  and  reporting  officer’s  honest 
evaluation of his performance.   In this regard, the applicant  alleged that the reviewer, who was 
also the CO, directed or unduly influenced the supervisor and reporting officer either to assign or 
to change certain marks and comments on the OER to ones she thought were appropriate.    
 
 
3.    The  JAG  stated  the  supervisor  and  reporting  officer  failed  to  provide  their  own 
independent  views  of  the  applicant’s  performance.    The  advisory  opinion  also  stated,  and  the 
Board  agrees,  that  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  shows  that  the  disputed  marks  and 
comments on the OER were assigned to satisfy the CO and were not an honest assessment of the 
supervisor’s and reporting officer’s opinions of the applicant’s performance.   In this regard, the 
supervisor and reporting officer admitted that they allowed certain of their marks and comments 

 

 

on the disputed OER to be influenced by their fear of whether the CO would accept any higher 
marks.  Their actions violated Article 10.A.2.a. of the Personnel Manual (2007), which states the 
following: 
 

The rating chain provides the assessment of an officer’s performance and value to 
the  Coast  Guard  through  a  system  of  multiple  evaluators  and  reviewers  who 
present  independent  views  and  ensure  accuracy  and  timeliness  of  reporting.    It 
reinforces  decentralization  by  placing  responsibilities  for  development  and 
performance evaluation at the lowest level within the command structure.   

 
 
 4.    Moreover,  the  supervisor  admitted  that  after  a  discussion  with  the  reporting  officer 
(who was the executive officer), he changed marks on the applicant’s OER to those the reporting 
officer believed the CO would accept so that the OER would not be returned to them.  The Board 
finds that the reporting officer influenced the supervisor to submit inaccurate marks to satisfy the 
CO.    This  appears  to  be  a  violation  of  the  intent  Article  2.A.2.e.2.c.  of  the  Personnel  Manual 
which  states  that  the  reporting  officer  shall  not  direct  that  an  evaluation  mark  or  comment  be 
changed.    
 
5.  In addition, the reporting officer stated that some of the disputed marks and comments 
 
on  the  OER  were  the  direct  result  of  undue  influence  from  the  CO.    Article  2.A.2.f.2.c.  of  the 
Personnel Manual prohibits the reviewer from directing the reporting officer to change or assign 
certain marks.  If the CO disagreed with the supervisor’s and reporting officer’s evaluation of the 
applicant’s  performance,  the  appropriate  avenue  was  for  her  to  attach  comments  providing  her 
view of the applicant’s performance.  See Article 10.A.2.f.2.b. of the Personnel Manual.   
 
6.    In  light  of  the  above,  the  Board  agrees  with  the  advisory  opinion  that  the  disputed 
 
marks and comments do not represent the supervisor’s and reporting officer’s assessment of the 
applicant’s  performance.  The  Board  also  agrees  with  the  advisory  opinion  that  sufficient 
evidence exists in the record to support the recommended corrections. The applicant also agrees 
with the recommendation for relief in the advisory opinion.     

 
7.  Accordingly, relief should be granted to the applicant. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 

 
 
  

 

 

 

ORDER 

 

The application of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, for correction of his military record is 

granted.  The OER for the period June 14, 2008 to June 30, 2009, shall be corrected as follows: 
 

  Raise the mark from 4 to 5 in “speaking and listening.” 
  Raise the mark from 4 to 6 in “workplace climate.” 
  Raise the mark from 3 to 4 in “responsibility.” 
  Raise the mark from 4 to 5 in “professional presence.”  
  Remove the following phrase form block 8 comments: “Failed to adapt to new role as 
mbr  of  Wardroom  bridging  the  gap  btwn  Officers  &  crew;  counseled  on  repeated 
exclusive relationships w/subordinates.” 

  Change  the  comparison  scale  mark  in  Block  9  from  the  center  (fourth  block)  to  the 

fifth highest block to the right. 

  Remove  the  following  phrase  from  block  10  comments:    “Anticipate  promotion 
recommendation  next  period  upon  strengthening  in  personal  and  professional 
qualities.”   

 
 

 
 

 
No other relief is granted. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Marion T. Cordova 

 

 

 

 
 
 Anthony C. DeFelice 

 

 

 
 Rebecca D. Orban