RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04893 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His Fitness Assessment (FAs) scores dated 3 Mar 11 and 
2 Jun 11 be declared void and removed from the Air Force Fitness 
Management System (AFFMS). 

 

2. His referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for 
the period 8 Jun 11 through 1 Aug 11, be declared void and 
removed from his records. 

 

3. He be promoted to the rank of Master Sergeant (MSgt) with an 
effective date of rank of 1 Nov 11. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He suffers with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Panic 
Attacks, and Anxiety Disorder which resulted in his flunking the 
two FAs in question. The medication he takes for these 
disorders, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), 
caused him to gain weight. Therefore, he failed the two FAs, 
received a referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), and lost 
his line number to MSgt. The SSRI Celexa caused him to gain 
30 pounds. When he was removed from Celexa in Sep 2009, he 
quickly lost the weight. In Jan 11, before his first FA 
failure, he notified his supervision and physicians about this 
unnatural weight gain, but received no support. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of a 
memorandum for the record (MFR) and a note from his physicians, 
excerpts from his Chronological Official Record of Medical Care, 
several AF Forms 422s, Notification of Air Force Member’s 
Qualification Status, and medical articles. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 


STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant entered active duty on 25 Sep 96, and is currently 
serving in the grade of Technical Sergeant (E-6). 

 

In 2008, the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD, Panic Attacks, 
and Anxiety Disorder. 

 

On 3 Mar 11, and again on 11 Jun 11, the applicant participated 
in the contested FAs. 

 

The applicant received a referral EPR for the period 8 Jun 10 
through 7 Jun 11, on which he was rated as “Does Not Meet” 
standards in Block 3, FITNESS. 

 

The applicant appealed his referral EPR to the Evaluation Report 
Appeals Board (ERAB); however, the ERAB was not convinced the 
contested report was inaccurate or unjust. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of 
primary responsibility and AFBCMR Medical Consultant which are 
included at Exhibits C, D, E, and I. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or injustice. The FAs in question were administered in 
accordance with the medical recommendation annotated on the 
AF Form 422. Both FAs were completed in compliance with Air 
Force policy. 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation, with attachment, 
is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
remove the referral EPR that resulted from his FA failures. 
While the applicant does provide some documentation from 
competent medical authorities to demonstrate that a prescription 
of Zoloft given to him to treat his underlying medical 
conditions could have played a role in weight gain, his medical 
records include evidence that he was given ample consideration 
by competent medical authority, and they determined not to 
exempt the applicant from the abdominal circumference (AC) 
component of the FA. The applicant also provides a copy of an 
article from the Cleveland Clinic journal of Medicine in support 
of his case; however, said article indicates that medical 
opinions vary as to whether or not Zoloft may be likely to cause 
weight gain. Having waist measurements of 41.5 and 42.5 inches 
at the time of the FAs is not physically fit and not in keeping 
with Air Force standards. It is every Airman’s responsibility 
to maintain the standards set forth in AFI 36-2905, Fitness 
Program, for 365 days a year. The FA is presumed to be 


administered fairly and accurately unless evidence to the 
contrary is provided. Ultimately, an evaluation report is 
considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the 
time it is rendered. The applicant has not substantiated the 
contested report was not rendered in good faith by all 
evaluators based on knowledge available at the time. The 
referral EPR in question was completely appropriate and within 
the regulatory Air Force requirements. 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial based upon the advisories from 
DPSIM and DPSID. The applicant was considered and tentatively 
selected for promotion to MSgt during cycle 11E7. He received a 
Promotion Sequence Number (PSN) of 2636.5, which would have 
resulted in his pinning on MSgt on 1 Nov 11; however, the fact 
that he received the referral EPR rendered him ineligible for 
promotion and his line number was subsequently removed. 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

He reiterates his original contention, and takes exception to 
two advisories. He agrees with DPSIM that both failed FAs were 
accomplished in accordance with Air Force policy, but does not 
think the advisory writers looked at the other pieces of 
evidence surrounding the FA failures. He reemphasizes that he 
was actively seeking help with his problem of not being able to 
lose weight, and submits his caloric intake for the period 
Jan 11 through Apr 11. In addition, he submitted his rebuttal 
letters for his Letter of Counseling and Letter of 
Reprimand/Unfavorable Information File (UIF) which he received 
for the two FA failures prior to receipt of his referral EPR, 
and asks the Board members to consider them. In addition, he 
notes he had no problem passing the FA administered under the 
new standards on 29 Apr 10, has passed his latest FA, and will 
pass his upcoming FA. Finally, he submitted two additional 
articles related to his medical condition (Exhibit G). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the 
applicant’s request due to insufficient medical evidence to 
support his claim of significant weight gain solely due to use 
of an SSRI. The applicant has a medical history of PTSD, panic 
attacks and anxiety disorder diagnosed in 2008. However, this 
case hinges upon whether there is sufficient medical evidence to 
substantiate his claim that his significant weight gain resulted 
from SSRIs. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a survey of 
scientific evidence for significant weight gain resulting from 


long term use of SSRIs. For the purpose of evaluating weight 
gain, significant weight gain is generally defined as a seven 
percent or greater increase in body weight. In the scientific 
literature, the pharmaceutical manufacturer of Celexa, Forest 
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. publishes scientific data regarding 
potential side effects, contraindications and warnings relative 
to this medication. In its publication, dated Aug 11, the 
literature states “Patients treated with Celexa in controlled 
trials experienced a weight loss of about 0.5 kilograms 
(1.1 pounds) compared to no change for placebo patients.” The 
present clinical evidence suggesting that significant weight 
gain with long-term SSRI use remains unclear according to 
established experts. In fact, other placebo-controlled studies 
using an SSRI for more than one year reported no weight gain. 
Therefore, the scientific evidence to support the claim that use 
of the SSRI was solely responsible for the applicant’s 30 pound 
weight gain is unsupported by scientific evidence. The AFBCMR 
Medical Consultant acknowledges the written opinions of treating 
health professionals involved in the applicant’s care during the 
period of unsatisfactory physical testing; however, the 
scientific literature should clearly support any medical 
opinions as to the impact and degree of any adverse effects 
attributed to use of a specific medication. Hence, we conclude 
there is no scientific evidence the SSRIs were solely 
responsible for the applicant’s weight gain and subsequent FA 
failures. 

 

A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is 
at Exhibit H. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the additional Air Force evaluation was forwarded to 
the applicant on 1 Oct 12 for review and comment within 30 days. 
As of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit I). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by 
existing law or regulations. 

 

2. The application was timely filed. 

 

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. We took 
notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility (OPR) and the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt 


their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant 
has not been the victim of an error of injustice. We note the 
applicant has provided a written statement from his physician 
indicating the applicant’s medication played a significant role 
in the applicant’s weight gain and subsequent FA failures; 
however, we concur with the determination of the AFBCMR Medical 
Consultant that the applicant’s arguments are not supported by 
scientific evidence. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to 
the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief 
sought in this application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and the 
application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of 
newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this 
application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-04893 in Executive Session on 7 Nov 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Feb 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 24 Feb 12, w/atch. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 9 Apr 12. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 18 Apr 12. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 May 12. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 18 May 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit H. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, 

 dated 18 Sep 12. 

 Exhibit I. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Oct 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair