Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-95-05248/USCOURTS-caDC-95-05248-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued April 1, 1997 Decided April 25, 1997

No. 95-5248

MICHAEL K. FRIZELLE,

APPELLANT

v.

RODNEY E. SLATER, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION,

APPELLEE

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Columbia 

(No. 93cv00905)

Eugene R. Fidell argued the cause and filed the briefs for 

appellant.

Michael J. Ryan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the 

cause for appellee, with whom Eric H. Holder, Jr., U.S. 

Attorney, R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant U.S. Attorney, and 

Paul S. Smith, Senior Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, were on the brief for the appellee. Michael 

USCA Case #95-5248 Document #268258 Filed: 04/25/1997 Page 1 of 12
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

T. Ambrosino, Assistant U.S. Attorney, entered an appearance.

James J. Kelley was on the brief for amicus curiae National Veterans Legal Services Program.

Before: WALD, ROGERS and TATEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge ROGERS.

ROGERS, Circuit Judge: Michael Frizelle petitioned the 

district court for review of a decision of the Secretary of 

Transportation, acting through the Coast Guard Board of 

Correction of Military Records. He challenged the Board's 

failure to delete several disparaging comments in an Officer 

Evaluation Report ("OER") that he received early in his 

career as a Coast Guard officer, and its decision not to delete 

from his record the fact that he had twice been passed over 

for promotion to lieutenant, resulting in his discharge. The 

district court granted summary judgment for the Secretary. 

Because the Board failed to address two of Frizelle's arguments that are not facially frivolous, we reverse and remand.

I.

Frizelle joined the Coast Guard Reserve in 1985, after 

serving nearly eight years as an enlisted man in the United 

States Air Force. He was selected for training as an officer 

in 1986, and commissioned as an ensign in February, 1987. 

He was stationed at the Coast Guard's Eighth District Office 

in New Orleans, where he ultimately served as assistant chief 

of the Reserve Programs Section. In that capacity, he was 

responsible for many of the office's computer systems, as well 

as a "grab bag" of special assignments.

On his first OER, Frizelle received generally strong marks 

from his supervisor and from the Chief of the Reserve 

Branch, who described him as "[a] very competent ensign and 

well qualified for promotion with his peers." Frizelle's second OER, covering the period from October 1, 1987 to March 

3, 1988, was markedly different in tone. Although his superUSCA Case #95-5248 Document #268258 Filed: 04/25/1997 Page 2 of 12
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

visor and the chief made several positive comments, they also 

made several disparaging comments, including the following:

His performance has been good in some areas but 

lacked effort in others.... Areas where performance 

has been less than expected are: system efforts were 

plagued by much down-time, confusion and many lingering problems due to his not delving sufficiently into 

system publications in an effort to learn and head off 

problems; often lead [sic] by problems rather than taking charge and leading the system; has had difficulty 

assessing areas of responsibility and establishing clear 

goals and objectives; has not kept supervisor adequately 

informed regarding status of ongoing projects; does not 

possess rudimentary familiarity with publications necessary to conduct research and develop definitive answers; 

has not demonstrated the ability to take charge of projects from inception to completion; has not managed to 

effectively monitor and complete many assigned projects....

One problem area that has had an impact on the Branch 

has been his difficulty fostering a cooperative working 

relationship with personnel from other sections within 

the Branch who are dependent on him for systems 

support. This situation has necessitated his Supervisor's 

involvement in routine situations that should have been 

handled at a lower level. Contributing to this problem is 

the fact that he has not kept appropriate interests apprised of changing situations; this has caused numerous 

misunderstandings and ill feelings between sections....

Frizelle has been tasked with many well-defined responsibilities this evaluation period and has not consistently 

produced the desired results. Performance due in part 

to the technical nature of his computer system related 

work; but part is also due to his inability to master the 

time management and interpersonal communications requirements of a staff position. He was counseled midway through this reporting period regarding his specific 

responsibilities, his performance, projects he was expectUSCA Case #95-5248 Document #268258 Filed: 04/25/1997 Page 3 of 12
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

ed to accomplish, and aspects of his performance that 

needed attention....

Works hard to achieve objectives; frequently misses 

them.... [M]isses deadlines due to unanticipated delays and unrealistic promises. Flawed computer equipment and software installations repeatedly caused us to 

lose the capability to access the mainframe. System 

down time was extensive but is improving. Much time 

spent pursuing air shipment of 32' [ports and waterways 

boat] only to find prohibitive cost factor ignored. Missed 

letter deadline responding to [Commandant] query....

The OERs required Frizelle's supervisor and the Chief of the 

Reserve Branch to evaluate Frizelle on a numerical scale 

from one to seven in a variety of categories. His numerical 

marks were also somewhat lower in several categories on the 

second OER than they had been on the first.

Frizelle's third OER contained no similar comments, and 

indicated that he had made "marked" improvements. Shortly 

after the end of that period, he left the Eighth District Office 

and began flight school. At approximately that time, he was 

promoted from ensign to lieutenant (junior grade). He subsequently served as a helicopter co-pilot in Coast Guard 

search and rescue operations. In that capacity, he received a 

Coast Guard award for courage and skill while participating 

in a lengthy offshore lifesaving mission. In both 1990 and 

1991, however, Frizelle was passed over for promotion to 

lieutenant. By statute, any officer of the Regular Coast 

Guard serving as a lieutenant (junior grade) who is passed 

over for promotion to lieutenant twice must be honorably 

discharged or, if eligible, retired. 14 U.S.C. § 282 (1994). 

Accordingly, Frizelle filed an application to the Coast Guard 

Board of Correction of Military Records pursuant to 10 

U.S.C. § 1552, asking the Board to delete his second OER, or 

alternatively to redact it to eliminate several of the critical 

comments, and to void the two passovers for promotion. 

While his application was pending before the Board, Frizelle 

was discharged.

USCA Case #95-5248 Document #268258 Filed: 04/25/1997 Page 4 of 12
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Frizelle challenged the second OER as inaccurate and 

unjust on several grounds. Among other things, he alleged 

that the comments relating to his management of the computer system failed to give him credit for significant accomplishments; that the comments describing poor interpersonal 

skills were the result of manipulation by a malcontent and 

verbally abusive chief warrant officer who repeatedly went 

over Frizelle's head to complain to his supervisors; that his 

superiors were biased against him because of his desire to 

attend flight school; that the comments relating to the transfer of the boat and the missed deadline were inaccurate and, 

in any case, occurred outside the reporting period; and that 

he had not received counseling from his supervisor at the 

beginning and end of the reporting period as required by the 

Coast Guard's Personnel Manual. Without addressing these 

arguments in detail, the Board denied Frizelle's application, 

finding that he had not established that the Coast Guard had 

committed any "errors" or "injustices." 10 U.S.C. § 1552. 

Frizelle thereafter filed a petition for review in the district 

court.

The district court granted Frizelle's motion for summary 

judgment and remanded to the Board, finding that it had not 

adequately explained its reasoning. On remand, the Board 

concluded that two of Frizelle's contentions had merit. First, 

it found that the sentence concerning the boat related to a 

matter from the prior reporting period, and deleted that 

sentence. Second, it found that the reference to the "mainframe" was inaccurate, since Frizelle's office did not have a 

mainframe computer, and changed the word "mainframe" to 

"system." The Board declined to strike the OER in its 

entirety or to make any other changes. It also concluded 

that the disputed OER was consistent with Frizelle's other 

OERs, and that, in light of the relatively minor relief being 

awarded, it would not void the promotion passovers. On 

rehearing, the district court granted summary judgment for 

the Secretary, finding that the Board had adequately explained its decision. This appeal followed.

USCA Case #95-5248 Document #268258 Filed: 04/25/1997 Page 5 of 12
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

1

10 U.S.C. § 1552(a)(1) provides:

The Secretary of a military department may correct any 

military record of the Secretary's department when the Secretary considers it necessary to correct an error or remove an 

injustice. Except as provided in paragraph (2), such corrections shall be made by the Secretary acting through boards of 

civilians of the executive part of that military department. The 

Secretary of Transportation may in the same manner correct 

any military record of the Coast Guard.

II.

Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552, the Secretary of Transportation 

has authority to correct any military record of the Coast 

Guard when "the Secretary considers it necessary to correct 

an error or remove an injustice."1 Except with respect to 

certain records relating to promotion or enlistment decisions, 

the Secretary must act through a civilian board. Decisions of 

the civilian board are subject to review under § 706 of the 

Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706. Dickson v. 

Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396, 1404 (D.C. Cir. 1995);

Kreis v. Secretary of the Air Force, 866 F.2d 1508, 1513-14 

(D.C. Cir. 1989); see also Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296, 

303 (1983). On review of a grant of summary judgment, we 

review the Board's decision de novo, applying the same 

standards as the district court. Kidwell v. Department of the 

Army, 56 F.3d 279, 286 (D.C. Cir. 1995). Hence, we defer to 

the Board's decision unless it is arbitrary and capricious, 

contrary to law, or unsupported by substantial evidence.

Applying this standard, we conclude that many of the 

challenges Frizelle has raised to the Board's decision are 

without merit. While the Board could have explained its 

reasons for rejecting Frizelle's arguments in more detail, "an 

agency's decision [need not] be a model of analytic precision 

to survive a challenge. A reviewing court will "uphold a 

decision of less than ideal clarity if the agency's path may 

reasonably be discerned.' " Dickson, 68 F.3d at 1404 (citing 

Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Motor Freight System, 419 U.S. 281, 286 (1974)). All that is required is that the 

Board's decision "minimally contain "a rational connection 

USCA Case #95-5248 Document #268258 Filed: 04/25/1997 Page 6 of 12
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

between the facts found and the choice made.' " Id. (quoting 

Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)). Here, the Board's decision can 

reasonably be interpreted as a statement that Frizelle had 

not shown sufficient evidence of bias on the part of the 

officers who prepared the OER to "overcome the "strong but 

rebuttable presumption that administrators of the military, 

like other public officers, discharge their duties correctly, 

lawfully, and in good faith.' " Collins v. United States, 24 Cl. 

Ct. 32, 38 (1991), aff'd, 975 F.2d 869 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (quoting 

Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804 (Ct. Cl. 1979)). Thus, 

we defer to the Board's reasoning with respect to Frizelle's 

challenges concerning his computer skills, his relations with 

the chief warrant officer, and his superiors' annoyance at his 

desire to attend flight school. We also defer to the Board's 

conclusion that Frizelle was not prejudiced by the fact that he 

did not receive substantive OERs while he was in flight school 

because other officers in the same position were evaluated in 

the same way. However, because the Board's decision did 

not respond to two of Frizelle's arguments, which do not 

appear frivolous on their face and could affect the Board's 

ultimate disposition, we conclude that the Board's decision 

was arbitrary.

First, the disputed OER stated that Frizelle had missed a 

deadline in responding to an inquiry from the commandant. 

Frizelle argued before the Board that this comment was 

unfair, both because it related to a matter beyond his control, 

and because it occurred prior to the reporting period covered 

by the OER. He contended that the task of responding to 

the inquiry had been given to a subordinate who subsequently 

retired from the Coast Guard without completing his assignment. The Board responded that Frizelle "has not shown the 

comment was inaccurate ... since [Frizelle], according to a 

member of the rating chain, "inherited' those projects that the 

[subordinate] did not complete. The performance described 

in the OER is a description of how [Frizelle] pursued these 

projects."

As Frizelle notes, these comments fail to respond to his 

contention that the missed deadline did not occur within the 

USCA Case #95-5248 Document #268258 Filed: 04/25/1997 Page 7 of 12
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

reporting period. The Coast Guard Personnel Manual prohibits the officers in the rating chain that prepares an OER 

from discussing any performance or conduct of the reportedon officer that occurred outside the reporting period. The 

Coast Guard, like the military departments and agencies in 

general, is bound to follow its own regulations. Service v. 

Dulles, 354 U.S. 363, 388 (1957); Ortiz v. Secretary of Defense, 41 F.3d 738, 741 (D.C. Cir. 1994); Ingram Barge Co. v. 

United States, 884 F.2d 1400, 1405 (D.C. Cir. 1989). Although the rules in the Personnel Manual may not qualify as 

binding regulations for all purposes, cf. Jolly v. Listerman,

672 F.2d 935, 940-41 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1037 

(1982), the Board chose to delete the reference to Frizelle's 

handling of the boat transfer on the grounds that it referred 

to a matter that "would have been apparent" prior to the 

beginning of the reporting period. The Board thus treated 

the rule prohibiting reference to matters outside the reporting period as binding upon it, and we defer to its judgment. 

Yet the Board's treatment of the missed deadline focuses 

solely on whether the charge was accurate, as opposed to 

whether it unfairly faulted Frizelle for a matter that his 

evaluators were barred from considering. With respect to 

Frizelle's second challenge on this issue, the Board has not 

given "a reason that a court can measure" for its decision. 

Kreis, 866 F.2d at 1514.

Second, Frizelle alleged before the Board that he did not 

receive any counseling during the reporting period covered by 

the disputed OER. The Coast Guard Personnel Manual 

explicitly requires that supervisors meet with ensigns and 

lieutenants (junior grade) under their supervision at the 

beginning and end of each reporting period, and maintain an 

Officer Support Form ("OSF") on all such officers. Frizelle 

contended that the only counseling he received consisted of a 

meeting with the Chief of the Reserve Branch during the 

prior reporting period concerning the missed deadline. The 

Board responded that Frizelle had "failed to prove that he 

was not counseled," noting that the chief had stated in the 

OER that Frizelle had been "counseled midway through this 

reporting period regarding his specific responsibilities, his 

USCA Case #95-5248 Document #268258 Filed: 04/25/1997 Page 8 of 12
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

performance, projects he was expected to accomplish, and 

aspects of his performance that needed attention." The 

Board also noted that:

[Frizelle] did not submit the OSF for the Board to 

review. [The Personnel Manual] provides that supervisors "shall conduct" beginning and end of period 

meetings and are required to maintain an OSF on all 

reported-on officers in the grades of ensign and lieutenant (junior grade). Although the Board does not have 

the OSF to review, the OER itself shows that the applicant was counseled.

We conclude that this answer did not adequately respond to 

Frizelle's complaint.

Normally, the Board is entitled to presume that statements 

in an OER are fair and accurate unless an applicant presents 

specific evidence to rebut that presumption. See, e.g., Collins, 24 Cl. Ct. at 38. The Board could not reasonably expect 

Frizelle to support his claim by producing an OSF if in fact 

his supervisor never prepared the form, however. Furthermore, on its face the OER suggests that the officers in 

Frizelle's rating chain did not follow proper procedure. The 

OER refers to counseling "midway through this reporting 

period," whereas the Personnel Manual requires counseling at 

the beginning and at the end of the reporting period. Further, the statement in the OER relating to counseling came 

from the Chief of the Reserve Branch, who functioned as 

Frizelle's reporting officer, one step higher in the rating chain 

than his immediate supervisor. The Personnel Manual requires that the supervisor conduct the meetings and maintain 

the OSF. In sum, the OER itself, in combination with 

Frizelle's assertion that he did not receive counseling, suggests a deviation from Coast Guard policy. Again, in citing 

the Personnel Manual in its decision, the Board indicated that 

it treated the Manual rules as binding upon the Coast Guard.

Absent any discussion of these matters by the Board, we 

cannot conclude that these apparent deviations from Coast 

Guard policy are trivial. The Personnel Manual contemplates 

a higher level of supervision and monitoring for junior officers 

USCA Case #95-5248 Document #268258 Filed: 04/25/1997 Page 9 of 12
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

than for more experienced officers. The requirement of 

counseling at the beginning and end of each period would 

appear to serve this function. Counseling at the beginning of 

the period, for example, might enable an officer to learn what 

weaknesses his supervisors perceived in his performance and 

to identify areas in which he needed to improve. Counseling 

at the end of a period might enable the supervisor to explain 

his evaluation decisions and give the officer a chance to 

comment on or explain any perceived inadequacies. Although 

counseling in the middle of the period by an officer who was 

not Frizelle's direct supervisor might have served these purposes adequately, the Board's response provides no basis 

from which we could make that determination.

Had the Board found that it was unlikely that Frizelle 

would be promoted even if the second OER were stricken in 

its entirety, a remand might be unnecessary. However, the 

Board found only that the particular changes it made to the 

OERthe deletion of the sentence referring to the boat 

transfer operation and replacement of the word "mainframe" 

with "system"left it "virtually unchanged." On remand the 

Board may decide to make further changes to the OER in 

response to Frizelle's arguments about the missed deadline 

and the absence of counseling. Indeed, given the nature of 

the derogatory comments in the disputed OER, if the Board 

concludes that Frizelle did not receive counseling in the 

manner required by the Personnel Manual, it might determine that the proper remedy is to strike the OER in its 

entirety.

Additionally, we note that the Board's decision not to void 

Frizelle's passovers for promotion may have been influenced 

by its conclusion that "[t]he disputed OER is consistent with 

all of the other substantive OERs in the applicant's record." 

This conclusion is contrary to substantial evidence that Frizelle produced. In comparing the disputed OER to Frizelle's 

marks on the other OERs, the Board focused exclusively on 

his overall numerical ranking. The Board noted that Frizelle 

received a numerical mark of 4 on each of the OERs, with the 

exception of the first OER, on which he received a 5. According to the form, both of these rankings are reserved for 

USCA Case #95-5248 Document #268258 Filed: 04/25/1997 Page 10 of 12
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

2 The one exception was the numerical ranking for stamina. 

Frizelle was ranked at level 5 on all of his evaluations except for his 

third OER, where he was ranked at level 4. 

"the many competent professionals who form the majority of 

[the relevant] grade." The Board overlooked the fact that 

Frizelle's numerical marks in the individual categories rated 

on the second OER were equal to or lower than his marks on 

other OERs in virtually every instance.2 More importantly, 

the Board's focus failed to take into account the particularly 

damaging effect that disparaging written comments have on 

an evaluation. Quite apart from the numerical marks, the 

written comments on the second OERtwo of which the 

Board has already struckcontribute to its overwhelmingly 

negative tone. None of Frizelle's other OERs contain any 

similar comments. To the contrary, Frizelle's most recent 

OER described him as "[r]eady for greater responsibility ... 

[and] highly recommended for promotion," and the two preceding OERs described him as "[s]trongly recommended for 

promotion with his peers."

Under these circumstances, even if the Board decides not 

to strike the OER or redact it further, it still must reconsider 

the decision not to void the passovers, giving appropriate 

weight to the significant differences between the disputed 

OER and Frizelle's other OERs. The Board applied the test 

of Engels v. United States, 678 F.2d 173 (Ct. Cl. 1982), to 

determine whether it was appropriate to void the passovers. 

Under this standard, once an applicant has proven a legal 

error, the Board must determine whether the error was 

"prejudicial or harmless," looking not at whether "the officer 

would in fact have actually been promoted in the absence of 

the error," but merely at whether "promotion was not definitely unlikely or excluded." Id. at 174. There are two 

components to this question: first, whether the officer's record was "prejudiced by the errors, in the sense that the 

record appears worse than it would in the absence of the 

errors," and second, if there was prejudice, whether it is 

unlikely that the officer would have been promoted in any 

event. Id. at 176. As to the first prong, the burden of proof 

USCA Case #95-5248 Document #268258 Filed: 04/25/1997 Page 11 of 12
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

3 The rationale for the burden-shifting rule is that the government has "far greater knowledge of the facts, statistics, and operations of the promotions selections process, [and] is in [a] much 

better position to produce evidence and materials showing the lack 

of adequate nexus in spite of the claimant's prima facie case." 

Engels, 678 F.2d at 175. 

rests with the officer seeking to void the passovers. As to 

the second, the officer has the burden of producing a prima 

facie case, but the government has the ultimate burden of 

persuasion.3Id. at 175-77. On remand, therefore, once the 

Board determines what further changes, if any, are appropriate in the OER, it should decide whether Frizelle has met his 

burden of proof under Engels, explaining the basis for its 

conclusion, and then, if necessary, consider whether the Coast 

Guard has sustained its burden.

Accordingly, we reverse the grant of summary judgment 

and remand the case to the district court with instructions to 

remand the case to the Board for further proceedings.

USCA Case #95-5248 Document #268258 Filed: 04/25/1997 Page 12 of 12