RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-03224
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be reimbursed for the Servicemember’s Group Life Insurance (SGLI)
premiums automatically deducted from April through September 2001.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or unjust and
the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the
applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the
appropriate office of the Air Force.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPW recommends approval of the applicant’s request for reimbursement
of all overcharged premiums as of 1 November 2001 and disapproval of all
premiums from 1 April through 31 October 2001. The applicant had adequate
time during the month of April 2001 to make a new election or refuse the
benefit. The applicant did not provide any documentation to indicate that
he was not aware of the change and his responsibility to make a new
election or to refuse the benefit.
The AFPC/DPW evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 1 March
2002 for review and response within 30 days. However, as of this date, no
response has been received from this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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. Public Law 106-419, Section 312,
effective 1 April 2001, automatically increased the level of SGLI coverage
to $250,000 for all eligible military members, regardless of any prior
election. Members who had elected no coverage or less than $250,000
coverage prior to 1 April 2001, could avoid the higher premiums provided
they completed a new election form in April 2001. No evidence has been
submitted showing that the applicant declined coverage during the month of
April 2001. The applicant contends that he was unaware of the change due
to a deployment; however, we note that he was not deployed until May 2001.
Although AFPC/DPW recommends approving his request for reimbursement of all
overcharged premiums as of 1 November 2001, the Leave and Earnings
statements provided by the applicant for October through December 2001 do
not indicate that SGLI premiums were deducted from his pay. Therefore, we
find no 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 01-03224 in
Executive Session on 24 July 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member
Mr. Edward H. Parker, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Nov 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPW, dated 25 Feb 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Mar 02.
JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
Panel Chair
Therefore, they recommend the Board approve applicant’s request and authorize reimbursement of all overcharged premiums effective 1 July 2001 and disapprove reimbursement of all charged premiums from 1 April 2001 through 30 June 2001. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 5 April 2002 for review and...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2001-03442
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 17 April 2002, the applicant provided additional information, with attachments, to support her appeal. Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPW stated that the applicant was erroneously charged for SGLI for the period of 20 Feb 98 to 31 Mar 01. In their opinion,...
Applicant did not complete a new SGLV 8286 declining coverage until 30 November 2001. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that it is noted that notification of the SGLI reenactment was posted in their base newspaper. He further states that if the period of 1 April–30 November 2001 is disapproved for reimbursement he request that the Board...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPW indicated that Section 312 of Public Law 106-419, 1 Nov 00, automatically increased the level of SGLI coverage for all eligible military members from $200,000 to $250,000 effective 1 Apr 01. Members who failed to complete a new SGLV 8286 during the month of Apr 01 to elect a lower amount of coverage or “no coverage” were automatically covered for $250,000 in accordance with public law. It is...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02700A
The applicant's request to be reimbursed for his SGLI premiums was considered and denied by the Board on 15 April 2003. Lackland AFB notified its servicemembers of the pending change to SGLI coverage by using the base bulletins, newspapers, and the April 2001 pay statements. It would appear that he was notified of the SGLI increase and we find no evidence to support his miscounseling contention.
On 4 February 2002, the applicant completed a new SGLV 8286 declining coverage _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPW recommended denial. It is their opinion that the Aviano AB leadership took adequate steps as directed to inform all members of the increase in coverage and that the applicant had adequate time during the month of April 2001 to make a new election and avoid the increased premium. We took notice of the...
Members who failed to complete a new SGLV 8286 during the month of April 01 to elect a lower amount of coverage or “no coverage” were automatically covered for $250,000 in accordance with this provision (Exhibit B). A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application AFBCMR Docket Number 01-02344 in Executive Session on 24 July 2002, under the provisions of AFI...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2001-03623
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibits B, and E. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPW recommends the application be denied due to lack of sufficient evidence to support the applicant’s claim. It is DPW’s opinion that the Maxwell AFB leadership took adequate steps as...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or unjust and the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPW recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the Pentagon leadership took adequate steps to inform all members of the increase in coverage and the...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or unjust and the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air...