RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03359 INDEX CODE: 128.14 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reimbursed for all retroactive Family Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (FSGLI) premiums deducted from his pay. The attached SGLV Form 8286A, Family Coverage Election, dated 24 Sep 07, apply retroactively to 1 Nov 01. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He either declined coverage and the form was lost during the electronic records transition or the military personnel flight (MPF) never effectively communicated the need to decline coverage. He states that either way, the 69 Defense Finance and Accounting Service leave and earnings statements (LESs) he received over the timeframe reinforced that he had declined coverage since there was no FSGLI deduction. He is being charged $554 for coverage he never wanted and probably declined. This error was caused by ineffective communication on LESs, the MPF, and the DFAS process owners. Over this time, he received 69 LESs that indicated he was not paying for or receiving FSGLI and that he was married to a military spouse. Anytime a FSGLI message was in the remarks section he had only looked at the deductions to confirm that he had declined. Since his wife is a military spouse he reviewed her LESs as well over the time frame in question. They received 138 documents each with two official indicators (276 total) that he and his wife had both elected not to take the FSGLI and that the Defense Eligibility Enrollment System (DEERS) database reflected their 1987 marriage. Thus, over the same time period the process owners produced 138 documents that, based on their current actions were in error. In the course of trying to get this injustice corrected, he states he dealt with three Altus MPF, three DFAS, and two Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) personnel. To him, it was clear that from these dealings and after almost six years of implementing this process the only person that fully understood the process was the senior individual at AFPC. To hold a member financially responsible for errors with communication and processes that the process owners still do not fully understand nearly six years after implementation is not only unjust but absurd. Moreover, the way the FSGLI process was implemented and the way the DEERS’s reconciliation process is being conducted unfairly targets/discriminates against military married to military couples (especially those with no dependents). Ultimately, targeting military to military couples demonstrates the flaws in the DFAS and MPF processes that have existed for nearly six years and now the military members are being held financially responsible for DFAS/MPF process and communication errors. In an Air Force that puts “Integrity First,” the receipt of 138 LESs with 276 indications that FSGLI had been declined since it was not being deducted and Basic Allowance for Quarters (BAQ) with Dependents shows “Spouse” demonstrates the broken DFAS/MPF process and ineffective communication and should clearly over- rule any “advertising campaigns” and “it’s the law” arguments from process owners. It should also be noted that “the law” did not specify the process for declination or declination notification. It was the policy makers that determined how members would be notified on the declination requirements and they clearly chose procedures and processes that were and are inadequate. The applicant states he also believes the FSGLI advertising overlapped with the automatic SGLI increase from $200K to $400K. It is grossly unjust to be retroactively charged for ineffective MPF and DFAS communication and processes. The fact that he noted/declined FSGLI after the first LES it appeared on supports his position. He further states the DFAS/MPF process error occurred while he and his wife were assigned at five different installations in three major commands and a joint agency, which further support his contention that the process owners do not fully understand the FSGLI process and the linkages to DFAS and member LESs. DFAS is unjustly deducting $554 over six months for retroactive FSGLI payments for coverage he never wanted. In support of his request, the applicant provided a copy of his 24 Sep 07 FSGLI election. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 5 Jun 01, President Bush signed the Veteran’s Survivor Benefits Improvement Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-14) into law, which was the enabling legislation for the FSGLI program. FSGLI, which was implemented DoD-wide on 1 Nov 01, made it possible for servicemembers to take out low cost insurance on their spouse for up to $100,000 (premium charged) and $10,000 life insurance for dependent children (no cost) through the Office of Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance. For spouses and children of military members with current Servicemembers Group Life Insurance (SGLI) coverage, coverage was automatic and commenced on 1 Nov 01 unless members opted out between 1 Nov 01 and 31 Dec 01. Specific instructions were also provided to all Air Force bases on the procedures they needed to follow in order to ensure that military married to other military members were properly charged for this new benefit. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFC recommends denial of the applicant’s request. It is the opinion of DPFC that the Brooks City Base’s leadership took adequate steps as directed to inform all members of the new program and that the applicant had adequate time between 1 Nov 01 and 31 Dec 01 to make an election decision. Additionally, the applicant did not provide any documentation to indicate that he was not aware of this change and his responsibility to make an election decision. The AFPC/DPFC complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 7 Dec 07 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has not received a response. ________________________________________________________________ _ 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 error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ _ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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 Docket Number BC- 2007-03359 in Executive Session on 19 Mar 08, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 4 Oct 07. Exhibit B. Memorandum, AFPC/DPFC, w/atchs, dated 15 Nov 07. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Dec 07. XXXXXXXXXXXXX Panel Chair