DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2007-072 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
 
This proceeding was conducted under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and sec-
tion 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  The Chair docketed the case on January 19, 2007, 
upon receipt of the completed application, and assigned it to staff member J. Andrews to pre-
pare the decision for the Board as required by 33 C.F.R. § 52.61(c). 
  
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  February  8,  2008,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he was advanced from 
YN2/E-5 to YN1/E-6 on September 1, 2006.  He further asked the Board to remove from his 
record  two  CG-3307s  (“Page  7s”)  dated  October  12,  2005,  and  November  27,  2006,  which 
documented his placement on weight probation.   
 

The applicant stated that in the summer of 2005, he suffered an unexplained weight gain 
even though he exercised four or five times per week and did not overeat.  In October 2005, he 
was found to be about 50 pounds overweight during a semiannual weigh-in at his command and 
was placed on weight probation.  Contrary to the Coast Guard’s weight and fitness regulations in 
COMDTINST M1020.8F, he alleged, no blood  tests were performed to  determine whether an 
underlying medical condition was causing his obesity.  

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  he  quickly  enrolled  in  an  Army  Lean  Program.    However, 
because  of  medications  he  was  taking  for  post-traumatic  stress  disorder  (PTSD),  his  doctor, 
CAPT R, told him that the weight-loss program “would be detrimental to my recovery and filled 
out a CG-5050 (Command Medical Referral Form) requesting an abeyance [of the weight pro-
bation] be granted.”  In December 2005, the Operational Medicine and Medical Readiness Office 
at the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC) denied the waiver request and ordered him to 
undergo a body fat analysis.   

 

 
On August 7, 2006, Dr. R told him that he had hypothyroidism, which made it extremely 
difficult for him to lose weight.  Dr. R began treating him with the minimum dosage of 0.07 mg 
of Levetrothyroine because the EKG equipment was broken so they could not determine whether 
he could tolerate a higher dose.  After the EKG was performed on August 25, 2006, he was pre-
scribed 0.1 mg of Levetrothyroine. 

 
On August 31, 2006, a third class petty officer at his command measured his body fat at 
27%, so his command decided not to report the matter to CGPC because they thought that with 
the help of the Levetrothyroine he would attain 25%—the maximum permitted—fairly quickly.  
However, on September 15, 2006, a chief warrant officer performed his body fat measurements 
and found him to be at 30%, even though he had lost 30 pounds since October 12, 2005.  There-
fore, Dr. R completed a new CG-5050 waiver request, reporting that the applicant’s undiagnosed 
thyroid condition and other medications had prevented him from losing sufficient weight since 
October 12, 2005, to meet the fitness standards. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  in  response  to  CGPC’s  order,  his  command  performed  the 
body fat analysis but did so improperly by measuring his waist with the tape measure on top of 
his clothes and then subtracting an inch from the total.  As a result of the incorrect measurement, 
CGPC ordered that he be discharged.  However, after  a new measurement was taken, he  was 
placed on weight probation.  The starting date for his probationary period was set at October 12, 
2005, and the end date was April 28, 2006.   

 
The applicant stated that after placing him on probation, his command did not assign him 
a health coordinator for two months.  Although he hired a personal trainer and continued to see a 
dietician and counselor at the Lean Program, he was unable to reduce his body fat significantly.  
In April 2006, when it became clear that he would not reach the weight goal by the end of his 
probation, Dr. R ordered a medical board to be convened to determine his fitness for continued 
service.  Then another doctor, Dr. V, finally ordered blood tests to determine whether there was 
an  underlying  medical  problem  causing  his  inability  to  lose  weight.    On  July  28,  2006,  more 
blood tests were ordered because the first set had indicated the existence of an abnormality.   

 
Regarding  his  advancement,  the  applicant  stated  that  he  had  taken  the  service-wide 
examination (SWE) in November 2005 and was number 38 on the advancement list.  Although 
the cut-off for guaranteed advancement was initially 36, it was later lowered below 38, so he did 
not take the SWE in the spring or fall of 2006.  On August 25, 2006, he learned that he was 
scheduled to advance on September 1, 2006, but that his command was going to withhold the 
advancement “until it [could] be shown that [his] thyroid condition was the cause of [his] not 
being in weight compliance.”  If Dr. R’s waiver request had been approved, his command would 
have been able to advance him, but on November 27, 2006, CGPC denied the waiver, finding 
that his “medical condition is stabilized with the use of medications and that he can safely lose 
weight to comply with Coast Guard weight standards.”  However, because he was unable to lose 
enough  weight  or  body  fat  to  meet  the  fitness  standards  by  December  16,  2006,  he  was  not 
advanced off the list before it expired.  Therefore, to advance, he must take the SWE again.   

 
The  applicant  argued  that  the  withholding  of  his  advancement  was  unfair  because  the 
Coast  Guard  had  failed  to  conduct  the  blood  tests  required  in  October  2005  and  so  failed  to 

timely  detect  and  treat  his  hypothyroidism.    He  stated  that  his  health  and  weight  loss  records 
clearly prove that if his condition had been timely diagnosed and treated, he would have been in 
compliance  with  the  Coast  Guard’s  fitness  standards  in  time  to  be  advanced  on  September  1, 
2006.  Therefore, he asked the Board to advance him to YN1 as of September 1, 2006. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
On February 22, 1999, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard.  His weight upon entry 
 
is not in the records before the Board.  However, a Page 7 prepared for his record on March 31, 
2000,  states  that  he  weighed  230  pounds  and  his  percentage  body  fat  was  19%.    The  Page  7 
noted that, at age 25 and standing 6’2” tall, the applicant’s maximum allowable weight was 230 
pounds.  Medical records prepared pursuant to the applicant’s treatment for PTSD, obesity, thy-
roid function, and various colds, flus, etc., show the following measurements: 

 

 

Date 
March 2000 
February 2003 
January 2004 
February 2004 
October 2004 
March 2005 
April 2005 
May 2005 
June 2005 
July 2005 
October 2005 
November 2005 
December 2005 
January 2006 
February 2006 
March 2006 
April 2006 
May 2006 
July 2006 
August 2006 
September 2006 
October 2006 
November 2006 
December 2006 
January 2007 
March 2007 
April 2007 

Weight in pounds1 

Body Fat %2 

TSH Level3 

230 
225 
259 
257 
244 
248 
242 
267 
265 
255 
271 
279 
273 
278 
274 
279 
276 
287 
278 
272 
267 
259 
249 

 

< 240 
242 
239 

 
 
 
 
 
 
25 
 
 
 
30 
29 
26.7 
29.4 
28.6 
29.9 
30.2 
30.6 
29.9 
29.7 
29.7 
28.6 
27.1 

 
 
25 
 

1.13 

3.86 

5.159 
5.613 
1.509 

1.516 

 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 
 

                                                 
1 These are just some of the weight measurements in the applicant’s record.  The measurements vary significantly 
from week to week.  Many of the weight measurements in his record were taken in his uniform and shoes or boots.   
2 Enclosure 5 to COMDTINST M1020.8E provides that a man’s body fat percentage is determined by subtracting 
the  circumference  of  his  neck  from  the  circumference  of  his  abdomen  at  the  navel,  measuring  his  height  to  the 
nearest half-inch, and checking a chart.  (In COMDTINST M1020.8F, these instructions appear in Enclosure 4.) 
3 The level of thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) in the blood is an indicator of thyroid function.  In January 2004, 
the applicant’s test results stated that the normal range of TSH was 0.465 to 4.680 uIU/ml.  Beginning in October 
2004, the test results stated that the normal range of TSH was 0.35 to 5.10 uIU/ml. 

In February 2004, the applicant was referred to a diet and exercise program after weigh-

 
ing in at 257 pounds.  A blood test indicated that his TSH level was within normal limits.   
 

In October 2004, the applicant sought treatment for depression, noting that a friend had 
committed suicide and that he had been hospitalized in 2001 due to a suicidal gesture.  He was 
prescribed Ambien and Celexa, an antidepressant.  A blood test indicated that his TSH level was 
within normal limits.   

 
On January 13, 2005, a doctor noted that the applicant had also been prescribed Wellbu-
trin.  Medical records dated from March through June 2005 indicate that a psychiatrist was pre-
scribing  Ambien,  Wellbutrin,  and  a  medication  spelled  variously  in  his  records  as  beneflexin, 
beneflaxin, or benaflexin for the applicant’s depression.4 

On  April  1,  2005,  the  applicant  acknowledged  a  Page  7  stating  that  he  weighed  242 
pounds and his percentage body fat was 25%.  The Page 7 noted that, at age 30 and with a height 
of 6’2”, the applicant’s maximum allowable weight was 242 pounds.  The Page 7 encouraged 
him to “complete a wellness profile and aggressively pursue your basic fitness plan.”   

 
On  June  30,  2005,  the  applicant  expressed  concern  about  his  weight  gain.    He  was 

 

referred to the Army’s Lean Program. 

 
On July 21, 2005, a medical record noted that the applicant was taking Ambien, Well-
butrin,  Effexor,5  and  Remeron  for  his  psychiatric  symptoms.    He  continued  to  take  Effexor 
through January 2007. 

 
On  September  29,  2005,  Dr.  R  noted  that  the  applicant  would  discontinue  Remeron 

because he had experienced excessive fatigue and begin taking Nortriptyline. 
 
 
On  October  12,  2005,  the  applicant’s  physician,  Dr.  R,  signed  a  Command  Medical 
Referral  Form,  in  which  he  noted  that  during  the  unit’s  semiannual  weigh-in,  the  applicant 
weighed 271 pounds, which, Dr. R wrote, was 29 pounds over the maximum permitted for a man 
of the applicant’s age, height, and wrist measurement.  His body fat was measured at 30%.  Dr. R 
stated that the applicant’s PTSD was an underlying medical condition that had contributed to his 
weight gain but was now “aggressively being treated” and that it was safe and feasible for him to 
lose the excess weight although his PTSD medication was known to increase a person’s appetite.  
He noted that the applicant was already enrolled in the Lean Program. 
 
 
On  November  2,  2005,  the  applicant  acknowledged  a  Page  7  dated  October  12,  2005, 
stating that his probationary period was to be held in abeyance pending his return to a fit for full 
duty status, when it would be restarted “with the length of the probationary period based on your 
current weight when found fit for full duty or when the abeyance is lifted.”  The Page 7 noted 

                                                 
4 An internet  search of these  spellings and various pharmaceutical  websites produced no results  for a psychiatric 
prescription drug by this name or any similar name.  It may be that the doctor meant venlafaxine, the generic name 
for Effexor. 
5 The generic name for Effexor is venlafaxine. 

that if he failed to comply with the fitness standards by the end of his probationary period, he 
would be separated. 
 

On November 4, 2005, the applicant’s command asked CGPC to approve the abeyance of 
his weight probation.  On November 18, 2005, CGPC informed the command that because the 
applicant’s  excess  weight  exceeded  the  amount  he  could  lose  safely  within  36  weeks,  Coast 
Guard regulations required that he be discharged from active duty.  CGPC also noted that the 
applicant’s medical condition did not prevent him from losing weight safely.  On December 22, 
2005, however, CGPC informed the  command that the applicant was not subject to discharge 
because  his  body  fat  had  been  measured  improperly  during  the  October  12,  2005,  weigh-in.  
CGPC stated that on December 6, 2005, the applicant’s body fat had been correctly measured 
and he was eligible for weight probation. 
 
 
On January 10, 2006, the applicant acknowledged a Page 7 prepared for his record on 
December 28, 2005.  The Page 7 stated that the measurements taken on October 12, 2005, had 
been inaccurate and yielded conflicting results.  Because remeasurement on December 6, 2005, 
showed that the applicant was 45 pounds overweight and had 32% body fat, he was eligible for 
weight  probation.    The  Page  7  stated  that  his  probationary  period  had  begun  on  October  12, 
2005, and that he needed to lose 45 pounds or decrease to no more than 25% body fat by April 
26, 2006, to avoid separation. 
 
 
On January 23, 2006, Dr. V, a clinical psychologist for the Army’s Lean Healthy Life-
style Program, reported to Dr. R that the applicant had not lost weight although he was attending 
all his appointments and achieving his nutritional and exercise goals.  He also wrote that “there is 
no indication of any medical barriers to further weight and body fat loss, but [the applicant] is 
due for further diagnostic testing of metabolic function over his next few sessions.” 
 
 
On February 15, 2006, CGPC denied a request from the applicant’s command to extend 
his probationary period because, although his medication might increase his appetite, it would 
not cause weight gain independent of his food intake.  CGPC stated that a medical review of the 
applicant’s record had concluded that he suffered from no underlying conditions that would pre-
vent him from losing the required amount of weight through a proper diet and exercise.  CGPC 
noted  that  if  the  applicant  failed  to  meet  the  fitness  standards  by  the  end  of  his  probationary 
period on April 26, 2006, he would be subject to discharge. 
 
 
On March 8, 2006, Dr. V reported to Dr. R that the applicant thought his failure to lose 
weight was a side-effect of his PTSD medications.  On March 22, 2006, Dr. R noted that the 
applicant was going to be evaluated by a medical evaluation board. 
 
 
The applicant’s command failed to prepare a Page 7 documenting the end of his weight 
probationary period on April 26, 2006.  Although the applicant had not met the fitness standards, 
he was not discharged. 
 
On July 5, 2006, Dr. V noted that the applicant had lost 9 pounds since his prior monthly 
 
weigh-in and so weighed 278 pounds.  The applicant had begun a strength-training program five 

days per week.  Dr. V ordered blood tests since tests performed by the Coast Guard were “not 
acknowledged” by the Coast Guard clinic. 
 

On July 27, 2006, a blood test of the applicant’s thyroid function showed that his TSH 
level was high at 5.159, whereas the normal range was stated to be between 0.35 and 5.10.  On 
August 1, 2006, the test was repeated and the result showed that his TSH level was 5.613. 
 
On August 17, 2006, Dr. V noted that the applicant weighed 272 pounds and had lost  
 
6 pounds since his prior weigh-in, but that his body fat percentage had not changed significantly.  
Dr. V noted that the applicant had been diagnosed with hypothyroidism and so started taking 
synthroid medication. 
 
 
On August 22, 2006, Dr. R signed a Command Medical Referral Form stating that the 
applicant’s hypothyroidism constituted an underlying medical condition causing his weight gain; 
that he had been under treatment since early August; and that it was safe for the applicant to diet 
and exercise.  
 
 
Also on August 22, 2006, the Commandant issued ALCGENL 114/06, which announced 
the names of personnel who were eligible for advancement as of September 1, 2006.  The appli-
cant’s name was on the list for advancement to YN1.  
 
 
On August 28, 2006, the Personnel Services Center informed the applicant’s command 
that his advancement was being withheld under Article 5.C.25.c.1.f. of the Personnel Manual, 
but that if he regained eligibility prior to the expiration of the advancement list on December 16, 
2006, he could be advanced. 
 
 
On September 13, 2006, Dr. V noted that the applicant weighed 267 pounds and had lost 
5 pounds since his last weigh-in.  However, his body fat percentage had not changed significant-
ly.  A blood test taken in September 21, 2006, showed that his TSH level had fallen to 1.509, 
well within normal limits. 
 
 
On October 13, 2006, Dr. V reported that the applicant weighed 259 pounds, his body fat 
had decreased, and “he showed an increase in lean body composition.”  On November 19, 2006, 
Dr. R reported that the applicant had continued exercising and weighed 249 pounds. 
 
 
On November 27, 2006, CGPC informed the applicant’s command that their November 
9, 2006, request for an abeyance for the applicant’s weight probation was denied because medi-
cation had stabilized his thyroid function.  CGPC instructed the command to place the applicant 
on weight probation as of October 27, 2006, because he was 19 pounds overweight and had 28% 
body fat. 
 
 
On  November  27,  2006,  the  applicant  signed  a  Page  7  acknowledging  his  new  weight 
probationary  period  from  October  27,  2006,  to March  9,  2007.    The  Page  7  indicated  that  he 
weighed 253 pounds and had 28% body fat and needed to lose 19 pounds or drop to 25% body 
fat or he would be subject to discharge. 
 

 
On November 27, 2006, the applicant sent an email message to Dr. R asking him to pro-
vide a letter stating that no thyroid test was performed in October 2005 and that if his hypothy-
roidism had been discovered in October 2005, he would likely have been treated and would have 
been  in  compliance  with  the  fitness  standards  by  September  1,  2006,  so  that  he  could  have 
advanced to YN1.  On November 28, 2007, Dr. R sent the applicant an email in which he stated 
the following: 
 

I reviewed your chart.  You were screened for exceeding your MAW in Jan 04 and that prompted 
a dietician referral (the thyroid screen was normal).  We evaluated you this past year for obesity 
and continued you in the Lean Program.  The screening overlooked the possibility of Thyroid Dis-
ease (despite the family history).  The thyroid screening was completed some time after the over-
sight.  Your thyroid function was diminished and was a clear reason (coupled with several of your 
medications  for PTSD) for  weight gain and inability to shed the  weight.  The correction of the 
hypothyroidism culminated in an unprecedented recent weight loss. 
 
I  agree  that  the  oversight  affected  your  status.    The  diagnosis  of  hypothyroidism  would  have 
negated your entry into the weight program. 

On December 4, 2006, a Physical Evaluation Board recommended that the applicant be 

 
 
retained on active duty.  The recommendation was approved on March 7, 2007. 
 

On December 13, 2006, the applicant’s TSH level was measured at 1.516. 

On January 3, 2007, Dr. R reported that the applicant weighed less than 240 pounds. 

 
 
 
 
met Coast Guard fitness standards during the probationary period by achieving 25% body fat. 
 

On March 1, 2007, the applicant’s CO entered a Page 7 in his record stating that he had 

On March 21, 2007, an endocrinologist reported that the applicant weighed 242 pounds 
and had a BMI of 31.  She noted that his TSH was 3.86 (within normal limits) in October 2004 
but 5.16 in August 2006.  Since beginning synthroid medication, his TSH had dropped to 1.5 and 
his weight had initially dropped but then “plateaued at about 10 lbs. above goal.”  She noted that 
his  maternal  grandmother  and  great  grandmother  had  had  hypothyroidism,  and  that  his  hypo-
thyroidism was likely the cause of his past weight gain since he was losing weight with the syn-
throid medication.  She also noted, however, that his PTSD medications, Effexor and Nortrip-
tyline, “are known to cause weight gain mediated by both increased appetite and mechanisms 
independent  of  food  intake  that  are  not  well  understood.”    She  recommended  that  his  mental 
health provider consider changing from Effexor to an alternative such as Prozac “that might have 
less possibility of weight gain as a side-effect.” 
 
 
On March 28, 2007, Dr. R noted that the endocrinologist had reported that the applicant’s 
medications, Nortriptyline and Effexor, may have caused his weight gain “independent of appe-
tite and caloric intake.”  
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On October 4, 2007, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard recommend-
ed that the Board grant partial relief by correcting the applicant’s record to show that his weight 

probation was held in abeyance on August 22, 2006; that he advanced to YN1 on September 1, 
2006;  and  that  he  is  entitled  to  back  pay  and  allowances.    In  recommending  this  relief,  he 
adopted the findings and analysis provided in a memorandum on the case by CGPC. 
 

CGPC stated that in early November 2005, the applicant’s command held his weight pro-
bationary period in abeyance without proper authority.  CGPC rescinded the improper abeyance 
on November 18, 2005, because his doctor reported that he was able to lose weight safely despite 
his  medical  conditions  and  medications,  and  ordered  the  applicant’s  separation  because  his 
measurements indicated that he was not eligible for weight probation.  However, on December 
22, 2005, based on new body fat measurements, the applicant was granted a 28-week probation-
ary period. 

 
CGPC denied that COMDTINST M1020.8F or any other regulation requires the Service 
to conduct any particular kind of medical test when a member is found not to comply with the 
fitness standards.  Instead, the member’s physician determines what tests to conduct based upon 
the member’s medical history and responses to questions.  In the applicant’s case, Dr. R appar-
ently did not find screening for thyroid function to be warranted in October 2005.  CGPC noted 
that the applicant’s TSH level had been well normal limits in October 2004. 

 
CGPC stated that on February 15, 2006, the applicant’s command requested suspension 
of  his  probation,  but  CGPC  denied  the  request  because  although  the  applicant’s  medication 
might  increase  his  appetite,  it  would  not  cause  weight  gain  per  se  and  there  were  “no  other 
underlying  medical  conditions  that  would  prohibit  [him]  from  losing  the  required  weight.”  
However, in August 2006, testing did reveal an underlying medical condition that might have 
contributed to his excess weight: hypothyroidism. 

 
CGPC stated that on November 21, 2006, CGPC again denied a request from the appli-
cant’s command that his weight probation be held in abeyance because blood tests conducted on 
September 21, 2006, had shown that his thyroid function had been normalized with medication.  
Therefore, on November 27, 2006, the applicant was again placed on weight probation and was 
required to lose 19 pounds or drop to no more than 25% body fat by March 9, 2007.  CGPC 
stated that the applicant met the standards by achieving 25% body fat on March 1, 2007. 

 
In support of these allegations, CGPC submitted a copy of an email from the Office of 
Military Personnel (OMP), which reviews abeyance requests.  OMP stated that hypothyroidism 
is known to cause weight gain and so if a command submits evidence supporting a diagnosis of 
hypothyroidism and the member’s hormone levels have not yet been stabilized, a medical abey-
ance  will  be  authorized.    OMP  indicated  that  abeyances  of  three  months  or  less  are  normally 
granted  for  hypothyroidism.    OMP  stated  that  in  the  applicant’s  case  an  abeyance  was  not 
granted when his command requested it in November 2006 because, although he had been diag-
nosed with hypothyroidism, his TSH level had already been stabilized and he was losing weight, 
so an abeyance was deemed unnecessary. 

 
CGPC noted that the applicant’s command erred by failing to discharge him when he did 
not meet the fitness standards at the end of his  probationary period in April 2006.  However, 
CGPC stated that if the applicant’s command had promptly requested an abeyance on August 22, 

2006, after his hypothyroidism was first diagnosed, the abeyance would likely have been granted 
and would have terminated on October 26, 2006.  The abeyance would have allowed him to be 
advanced  on  September  1,  2006.    Therefore,  CGPC  recommended  that  the  Board  correct  the 
applicant’s record to show that he was granted an abeyance on August 22, 2006, and advanced to 
YN1 on September 1, 2006. 

 
CGPC stated that the applicant has not proved that the Coast Guard erred by failing to 
test his thyroid function in 2005 or that he suffered from hypothyroidism in 2005.  CGPC stated 
that the documentation of the applicant’s weight probationary periods in 2005 and 2006 should 
not be removed from his record.  CGPC argued that although there is evidence that some meas-
urements were taken improperly in October 2005, they did not prejudice the applicant since he 
was ultimately provided the probation he was entitled to and even given a second probationary 
period although he should have been discharged at the end of the first. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On November 8, 2007, the applicant responded to the views of the Coast Guard.  The 
applicant agreed with the recommendation that he be advanced to YN1 as of September 1, 2006, 
but argued that he is also entitled to removal of the documentation of his weight probationary 
periods beginning in October 2005 and November 2006.   

 
The applicant argued that the Coast Guard’s opinion ignores the fact that his antidepres-
sant medications contributed to his obesity.  He stated that he began taking such medications in 
late 2004 and early 2005 to treat his PTSD.  The applicant alleged that when he first began tak-
ing such medications he weighed about 230 pounds but then immediately began gaining weight.  

 
The applicant alleged that the Coast Guard failed to review his medical records before 
denying the requested abeyance in November 2005.  The applicant alleged that his command did 
not discharge him in April 2006 after he failed to meet the weight standards during his proba-
tionary  period  because  an  informal  Physical  Evaluation  Board  had  granted  him  a  six-month 
extension.  After his hypothyroidism was diagnosed and treated, however, he was declared fit for 
full duty and had to meet the fitness standards by March 2007 or be subject to discharge.  There-
fore,  he  stopped  taking  his  PTSD  medications  in  February  2007,  met  the  fitness  standards  by 
March 2007, and weighed just 220 pounds and had only 20% body fat by the time of his unit’s 
October 2007 semiannual weigh-in.  The applicant alleged that he has been unfairly forced to 
choose between taking his PTSD medications and meeting Coast Guard fitness standards. 
 

 

APPLICABLE FITNESS REGULATIONS 

 
 
COMDTINST  M1020.8E  provided  the  “Weight/Physical  Fitness  Standards  for  Coast 
Guard Military Personnel” from September 15, 2004, through April 26, 2006.  COMDTINST 
M1020.8F provided the standards beginning as of April 27, 2006.  Any substantive differences 
between the two manuals are noted herein.   
 

Article 2.D.1. states that all military personnel will be weighed each October and April, 
but COs may screen members against standards anytime they deem it necessary.  Article 2.C.1. 

states  that  all  personnel  will  present  to  their  supervisors  a  basic  fitness  plan  including,  “at  a 
minimum, … vigorous cardio-respiratory endurance training three times a week for thirty min-
utes each time and vigorous strength training one to three times per week.”  Article 2.D.3. states 
that all members “exceeding both MAW and body fat will complete a detailed personal fitness 
plan.”  Article 2.D.4. states that members who are found to be overweight or “overfat” will not 
be advanced, transferred to a new unit, assigned to training, or paid bonus installations until they 
are in compliance with regulations. 
 
 
Article 2.E.1. states that members not in compliance with MAW and body fat standards 
“shall be referred to a medical officer or local physician, who shall make a recommendation to 
the command as to the member’s health, whether or not weight and/or body fat loss would be 
detrimental to the member’s health, and the member’s ability to participate in each component of 
the monthly fitness assessment.”  Article 2.E.2. states that if weight and body fat loss would be 
detrimental  to  the  member’s  health,  the  command  shall  initiate  a  medical  board  for  possible 
separation proceedings under the Physical Disability Evaluation System. 
 

Article 2.E.3. states that a member diagnosed with an “underlying medical condition that 
limits  or  prohibits  his/her  participation  in  a  specific  portion  of  the  fitness  assessment  will  be 
excused  from  only  that  portion  of  the  fitness  assessment,  but  must  continue  to  participate  in 
weekly fitness enhancing activities outlined in his/her detailed fitness plan.  The physician will 
document his or her finding in the member’s health record.”   

 
Article 2.E.4. states that a “member found to have an underlying medical condition that 
would make fitness activities detrimental to his/her health is still responsible for meeting MAW 
standards  within  the  timeline  specified  by  the  probationary  period.”  (In  COMDTINST 
M1020.8F, this provision is included in Article 2.E.3.) 
 
 
Article  2.F.1.  states  that  unless  granted  an  exemption,  “overweight  members  who  also 
exceed their maximum body fat percentage shall be placed on probation, during which they must 
lose their excess weight or body fat.  The probationary period cannot equal or exceed thirty-six 
weeks, however.”  Article 1.A.3. states that healthy weight loss “should be at a rate of 0.5 to 1.0 
pound per week.”  Article 2.F.4. states that the probation period “shall equal the amount of time 
it would take the member to lose all excess weight at an average of one pound per week or one 
percent body fat per month, whichever is greater.”  Article 2.F.5. states that “[m]embers whose 
probationary period has been determined to be equal to or greater than 36 weeks both by weight 
calculations and by body fat calculations … shall be processed for separation.  If the situation 
exists in which one of the two calculations results in a period in excess of 36 weeks, and one less 
than 36 weeks, the member shall be assigned a probationary period based upon the calculated 
period which is less than 36 weeks.” 
 
 
Article  2.F.2.  states  that  a  probationary  weight  loss  period  “shall  not  commence  until 
after a medical examination.  Therefore, the medical exam must be completed as expeditiously 
as possible, usually within three to four weeks of the discovery that MAW standards have been 
exceeded.    However,  written  notification  and  acknowledgment  that  the  member  exceeds  the 
maximum standards shall be completed regardless of any delay.”   The probationary period must 
be acknowledged in a member’s record on a Page 7. 

 

Article 2.F.3. states that if a doctor determines that a member’s medication or medical 
condition prevents him from losing weight or body fat at the required rate, the CO may request 
permission  from  Headquarters  “to  hold  the  probationary  period  in  abeyance  for  a  specified 
period of time.  By so doing, the Service can avoid the unintended consequence of penalizing a 
member (e.g., withholding an advancement or payment of a bonus) who, through no fault of his 
or  her  own,  is  battling  a  medical  condition  that makes  weight  loss  challenging  or  impossible.  
Once the abeyance period has passed (i.e., once the patient’s condition has stabilized), the pro-
bationary period will resume with the length of the probationary period based on the member’s 
current weight.” 

 
Article 2.F.4. states that a probationary period “shall equal the amount of time it would 
take the member to lose all excess weight at an average of one pound per week or one percent 
body fat per month, whichever is greater.”  Article 2.F.5. states that a probationary period shall 
not equal or exceed 36 weeks. … Members whose probationary period has been determined to be 
equal  to  or  greater  than  36  weeks  both  by  weight  calculations  and  by  body  fat  calculations, 
except those granted an exemption per Chapter 3, shall be processed for separation.” 
 
 
Article  2.F.6.  states  that  “[d]uring  probation,  members  should  demonstrate  reasonable 
and consistent progress toward attaining their MAW (i.e., lose approximately half of the required 
weight or half the  excess percentage of body  fat by the midpoint of the  probationary period).  
Failure to demonstrate such reasonable and consistent progress may provide sufficient grounds 
for commanding officers to [initiate discharge] before the probationary period expires.” 
 
Article  2.F.11.  states  that  “MAW  standards  must  be  met  in  order  for  a  member  to  be 
 
removed from the weight program and retained in the Coast Guard.”  Article 2.F.12. states that at 
the  end  of  a  probationary  period,  “a  commanding  officer  may  use  discretion  to  add  up  to  an 
additional four (4) weeks if he or she determines the case warrants special consideration.” 
 
 
Article 2.G.1. states that “[m]embers who exceed their MAW and body fat percentage to 
such an extent that they would be placed in a probationary period of 36 weeks or more, fail to 
demonstrate reasonable and consistent progress during probation, or fail to attain their MAW or 
body fat by the end of their probation … shall be processed for separation.” 
 
 
Article 2.J. states that a Page 7 shall be prepared and entered in a member’s record when-
ever the member exceeds his MAW or maximum body fat percentage and whenever the member 
has successfully or unsuccessfully completed a probationary period. 
 
 
Article 3.A.1.  states that a “[m]ember who incurs an injury or illness during a probation-
ary period that may adversely affect their weight loss should be referred to a medical officer or 
contract physician to determine whether it is medically safe and feasible for the member to con-
tinue the weight loss program.”  Article 3.A.2. states that if members are found to have a medical 
condition that precludes weight loss and they are found not fit for full duty, their probationary 
periods shall be held in abeyance.  Members granted an abeyance must still participate in semi-
annual weigh-ins and have their current weight entered into Direct Access, but the probationary 
restrictions under Article 2.D.4. will not apply. 

 
 
Article 4.D. states that medical officers are responsible for evaluating overweight mem-
bers to determine whether there is an underlying medical cause; whether any underlying cause is 
treatable; and whether the member can safely participate in a weight loss program.  The medical 
officer also refers the member to a dietician.  
 
 
 
Article 12.B.12.a.10. of the Personnel Manual states that a member may be discharged 
for the convenience of the Government due to “[o]besity, provided a medical officer certifies a 
proximate cause of the obesity is excessive voluntary intake of food or drink, rather than organic 
or other similar causes apparently beyond the member’s control.” 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 

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

 
 
submissions, the Coast Guard's submissions, and applicable law: 
 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552.  

The application was timely. 

1. 

 
2.  

 
3. 

The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he advanced to 
YN1 on September 1, 2006.  The Coast Guard has admitted that if the applicant’s command had 
promptly requested an abeyance when Dr. R completed the Command Medical Referral Form on 
August 22, 2006, citing hypothyroidism as an underlying cause of the applicant’s obesity, the 
Coast Guard would likely have granted the abeyance because hypothyroidism is a known cause 
of weight  gain  and the  applicant had just been  diagnosed and begun treatment with synthroid 
medication.  However, for unknown reasons, the applicant’s command waited until mid Novem-
ber to request the abeyance.  If the abeyance had been requested and granted in August 2006, 
pursuant to Articles 2.F.3. and 3.A.2. of COMDTINST M1020.8F, the restrictions under Article 
2.D.4. would not have applied, and the applicant would have advanced to YN1 on September 1, 
2006.  Article 2.F.3. expressly states that abeyances should be requested to “avoid the unintended 
consequence  of  penalizing  a  member  (e.g.,  withholding  an  advancement  …)  who,  through  no 
fault of his or her own,  is battling  a medical condition that makes weight loss challenging or 
impossible.”  Therefore, the Board finds that the applicant’s command erred in failing to request 
an abeyance for the applicant promptly when Dr. R submitted the Command Medical Referral 
Form on August 22, 2006.  The preponderance of the evidence indicates that if the command had 
timely  requested  the  abeyance,  it  would  have  been  granted,  and  the  applicant  would  have 
advanced to YN1 on September 1, 2006.  Therefore, the applicant’s record should be corrected to 
show that he advanced to YN1 on September 1, 2006.  

The applicant asked the Board to remove from his record the Page 7 documenting 
his  placement  on  weight  probation  in  October  2005.    He  alleged  that  it  should  be  removed 
because (a) Dr. R told him that, because of his PTSD and medications, a weight-loss program 
“would be detrimental to my recovery”; (b) two of his PTSD medications, Effexor and Nortrip-
tyline,  caused  his  weight  gain  and  so  constituted  an  underlying  medical  condition  that  should 
have resulted in an abeyance; (c) he was suffering from hypothyroidism, which the Coast Guard 
did not timely detect because, contrary to regulation, no thyroid function tests were performed in 

October 2005; and (d) if his hypothyroidism had been diagnosed in October 2005, he would have 
been granted an abeyance and treated. 

Under Article 2.J. of COMDTINST M1020.8E, a Page 7 must be prepared by a 
member’s command “whenever a member exceeds his/her MAW or maximum body fat percent-
age.”  The regulations provide no exception to this rule, so a Page 7 should have been prepared 
for the applicant’s record in October 2005 whether or not an underlying condition was discov-
ered or an abeyance was granted because, at the time, he exceeded both his MAW and his maxi-
mum body fat percentage. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 
6. 

 
7. 

 

The applicant alleged that Dr. R told him that participating in a weight-loss pro-
gram would be detrimental to his recovery.  The record, however, contradicts this allegation, as 
Dr. R indicated on the Command Medical Referral Form dated October 12, 2005, that it was safe 
and feasible  for the applicant to lose his excess  weight  even though his  mental condition had 
contributed to his weight gain and his medication was known to increase a person’s appetite. 

Although the applicant alleged that CGPC’s denial of an abeyance in 2005 was 
unjust, he has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered from hypothyroid-
ism in 2005.  No regulation required the Coast Guard to test the applicant’s TSH level before 
preparing the Page 7, placing him on weight probation, or denying the abeyance.  Although when 
the applicant informed Dr. R that he had been denied advancement, Dr. R called the failure to 
test the applicant’s TSH level in October 2005 an “oversight,” the Board notes that the appli-
cant’s TSH levels had been tested and found normal twice in 2004 when the applicant weighed 
above his MAW.  And when the applicant’s blood was again tested in July 2006, his TSH level 
just  slightly  exceeded  the  stated  normal  range.    Moreover,  even  assuming  arguendo  that  the 
applicant did suffer from hypothyroidism in October 2005, he would still have been placed on 
weight probation after his TSH level was normalized with medication.  

Likewise, the applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that 
his PTSD or medications prevented him from losing weight or that it was erroneous or unjust for 
the Coast Guard to place him on weight probation in 2005.  Dr. R noted in the Command Medi-
cal Referral Form that although the applicant’s PTSD may have contributed to his weight gain 
and his PTSD medication was known to increase appetite, the applicant could lose his excess 
weight safely through diet and exercise.  In denying the abeyance requested in November 2005, 
medical officers in CGPC also apparently determined that the applicant was physically able to 
lose  weight  despite  his  diagnosed  PTSD  and  medication.    Moreover,  the  Board  notes  that 
although the applicant attributes his compliance with the weight standards in March 2007 to his 
decision to stop taking  Effexor and  Nortriptyline in February 2007, his  medical records show 
that he lost a great deal of weight—falling from 287 pounds in May 2006 to less than 240 pounds 
on January 3, 2007—while taking Effexor and Nortriptyline.  Therefore, although the endocri-
nologist reported to Dr. R on March 21, 2007, that those medications “are known to cause weight 
gain mediated by both increased appetite and mechanisms independent of food intake that are not 
well understood,” the Board finds that the applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the 
evidence that CGPC’s denial of an abeyance in 2005 was erroneous or unjust.   

8. 

The  Board  notes  that  under  Article  2.E.2.  of  COMDTINST  M1020.8E,  if  the 
Coast  Guard  had  determined  that  the  applicant  could  not  meet  the  fitness  standards  without 
forgoing his PTSD medications to the detriment of his health, the Coast Guard would not have 
granted him a permanent abeyance  of the fitness standards but would have processed him for 
separation under the PDES.  However, the PEB found him fit for duty  and recommended his 
retention on December 4, 2006. 

The applicant asked the Board to remove from his record the Page 7 documenting 
his  placement  on  weight  probation  in  November  2006.  He  alleged  that  it  should  be  removed 
because (a) if the Coast Guard had diagnosed his hypothyroidism in 2005, he would have been in 
compliance with the fitness standards by November 2006; and (b) his PTSD medications caused 
his weight gain and so constituted an underlying medical condition that should have resulted in 
an abeyance.  However, as stated in Finding 6, above, the applicant has not proved that the Coast 
Guard was negligent in failing to test his thyroid function in the fall of 2005; and as stated in 
Finding 7, he has not proved that his PTSD medications should have resulted in an abeyance 
since he in fact lost a great deal of weight in 2006 while taking Effexor and Nortriptyline.  The 
record shows that in November 2006, the applicant’s TSH level had been reduced with medica-
tion and he was losing weight.  Therefore, the denial of the abeyance requested in November 
2006 was neither erroneous nor unjust. 

If the applicant’s command had timely requested an abeyance after Dr. R submit-
ted  the  Command  Medical  Referral  Form  on August  22,  2006,  the  Coast  Guard  would  likely 
have granted an abeyance until the applicant’s TSH level was within the normal range so that he 
could lose weight through regular diet and exercise.  The record shows that the applicant’s TSH 
level was in the normal range by September 21, 2006.  CGPC submitted evidence indicating that 
abeyances granted for hypothyroidism are normally no more than three months long.  Therefore, 
even if the  applicant had been  granted an  abeyance in late August 2006, he would have been 
placed on weight probation by late November 2006 at the latest. 

 
9. 

 
10. 

 
11. 

Although the applicant has proved that he was unfairly denied advancement when 
his command failed to timely request an abeyance after he was diagnosed with hypothyroidism 
in August 2006, he has not proved that his periods of weight probation in 2005 and 2006 were 
imposed erroneously or unjustly.  Accordingly, partial relief should be granted by advancing the 
applicant to YN1/E-6 as of September 1, 2006, but the documentation of his weight probationary 
periods should remain in his record.  
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

ORDER 

 

 

 
All other requested relief is denied. 

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his 

military record is granted in part as follows:   

 
The Coast Guard shall correct his record to show that he advanced to pay grade YN1/E-6 
on September 1, 2006, and shall pay him any amount he is due, such as back pay and allowances, 
as a result of this correction.   

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 
 Philip B. Busch 

 

 
 
 Adrian Sevier 

 

 
 George A. Weller