IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 17 January 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120018595 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that Part II block d (This is a referred report, do you wish to make comments?) be "unchecked or masked" in the Officer Evaluation Reports (OER) covering the periods 20070225 – 20080109 and 20080110 - 20090109. 2. The applicant states the referred reports are unjust because he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression and he was prescribed two different anti-depressants which he believes caused his weight gain and his failing the height and weight standards. 3. The applicant provides copies of a two-page letter explaining his application, his OERs, and medical records related to his psychiatric treatment. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant was commissioned as a military intelligence second lieutenant on 11 May 1996 and entered active duty on 16 June 1996. He completed his training and has been serving on active duty since that time. He was promoted to the rank of major on 1 June 2006. 2. On 9 January 2008, the applicant was given a change of rater OER covering the period 20070225 – 20080109. He received maximum ratings from his rater and senior rater and the report was referred because the applicant did not meet height and weight requirements. His rater noted that he was enrolled in the weight control program. 3. On 9 January 2009, he was given an annual OER covering the period 20080110 – 20090109. Again, he received maximum ratings from his rater and senior rater and the report was referred because the applicant did not meet height and weight requirements. His rater noted that he was enrolled in the weight control program and he was making progress. 4. The next OER he received from the same unit and all subsequent reports reflect that he met height and weight standards. 5. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he appealed the contested OERs or that he responded to the referred reports. 6. The applicant provided medical documents that show he was prescribed Venlafaxine and Celexa (also known as Citalopram). 7. Information obtained from the National Institutes of Health website medlineplus.gov shows one of the side effects of both Venlafaxine and Citalopram is weight loss. 8. Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) establishes the policies and procedures and serves as the authority for the preparation of the OER. It provides that an OER accepted by Headquarters, Department of the Army, and included in the official record of an officer is presumed to be administratively correct and to have been prepared by the properly designated rating officials at the time of preparation. Each report must stand alone. Requests that an accepted OER be altered, withdrawn, or replaced will not be honored. An exception is granted only when information which was unknown or unverified when the OER was prepared is brought to light or verified and the information is so significant that it would have resulted in a higher or lower evaluation, had it been known at the time the OER was prepared. 9. Army Regulation 623-3 also provides that the burden of proof in an appeal of an OER rests with the applicant. Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of an OER under the regulation, the applicant must produce evidence that clearly and convincingly overcomes the presumptions referred to above and that action to correct an apparent material error or inaccuracy is warranted. Clear and convincing evidence will be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of an administrative error or factual inaccuracy. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant’s contentions and supporting documents have been noted; however, they appear to lack merit. 2. By the applicant’s own admission, medical officials did not deem his treatment for PTSD and depression as the underlying cause for his weight gain and he has failed to show through the evidence of record and the evidence submitted with his application that such was the case. 3. Accordingly, the contested report appears to represent a fair, objective, and valid appraisal of his performance and potential during the period in question. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request to alter the contested reports as requested. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING __X_____ ___X___ ___X____ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. _______ _ X______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120018595 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120018595 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1