RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00894
INDEX CODE: 128.14
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
She be reimbursed for the amount of Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance
(SGLI) deducted from her pay beginning in April 2001.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She declined SGLI when she joined the Reserves in 1997.
In support of her appeal, the applicant provided a DFAS Form 702, Defense
Finance and Accounting Service Military Leave and Earnings Statement.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Section 312 Public Law 106-419, 1 November 2000, was enacted by President
Clinton raising the amount of coverage under the SGLI from $200,000 to
$250,000. Under the provisions of this law, every eligible member of the
Participating Individual Ready Reserve (PIRR) was automatically covered,
regardless of any prior election. The provision also stated that within
the month of April 2001, any PIRR member could elect to withdraw or reduce
their coverage without being charged $20 per month for the maximum coverage
of $250,000.
On 5 June 2001, President Bush passed Public Law 107-14, Survivor Benefits
Improvement Act of 2001. Within the context of the law, the FSGLI program
was established to provide spouse and/or children coverage in the event of
their death. The coverage, by law, is automatic for all members of the
Armed Forces who have a spouse and/or children, unless the member declines
coverage.
On 6 March 2002, the applicant completed an SGLV Form 8286 declining
coverage
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ARPC/DPS recommended denial. They indicated that Headquarters, Air Reserve
Personnel Center (ARPC) extensively advertised the change to the program.
An article was included in the January/February 2001 issue of the Air
Reserve Personnel Update (ARPU) and again in the May/June 2001 issue.
These updates were mailed to the member at her home address, according to
correspondence received from personnel in the Public Affairs Office at
ARPC. The ARPC website had information about the change, along with
instructions on what to do if you wanted decreased coverage or wished to
decline coverage. An update about the change to the program was printed on
the February 2001 Leave and Earning Statement (LES). In addition,
information was posted on the “Above & Beyond” ARPC website.
The applicant was sent two separate notices concerning the new law, during
the months of August and October 2001, to her mailing address. The letter
contained instructions on how to decline or reduce coverage for FSGLI. In
addition to the letters, articles were published in the September/October
and November/December 2001 Air Reserve Personnel Update explaining the
change to the program. This update is mailed to all Individual
Mobilization Augmentees (IMAs) at their home address. The ARPC website
also had information about the change, along with instructions on what to
do if you want decreased coverage or wished to decline coverage. The
applicant was enrolled in SGLI, therefore, her prior approval was not
necessary to be enrolled in the program.
If the decision is to grant the relief sought, the member’s record should
be corrected to show that she elected to withdraw coverage under SGLI,
effective 1 April 2001.
The evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the evaluation and provided a response, which is at
Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
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 an 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 and adopt their
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 an error or an 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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-00894
in Executive Session on 24 July 2002 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
Mr. Edward H. Parker, Member
Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 March 2002, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Letter, ARPC/DPS, dated 3 June 2002, w/atchs.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 May 2002.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 29 May 2002.
JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
Panel Chair
The provision also stated that within the month of April 2001, any PIRR member could elect to withdraw or reduce their coverage without being charged $20 per month for the maximum coverage of $250,000. The applicant further states that she did not receive the ARPC update and that the website “does not say that the older forms are not valid anymore or that I have to resubmit a form even though I already had one on file.” Additionally, the website contains a section specifically addressing...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01797
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: No FSGLI was collected from her pay until 15 May 2003 when 19 months ($380.00) of “debt” was suddenly taken. All members of the Participating Individual Ready Reserve (PIRR) were mailed a letter with information concerning the new law and declination procedures, in August and October 2001 (Atch 1). _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00830
The coverage, by law, was automatic for all members of the Armed Forces who had a spouse and/or children, unless the member declined coverage. His MPF could not find a copy of his letter declining coverage. HQ ARPC extensively advertised the change to the program, including an article in the Air Reserve Personnel Update, and the notifications sent to the applicant’s address contained information regarding the FSGLI changes.
___________________________________________________________________ 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 at Exhibit B. The provision also stated that within the month of April 2001, any PIRR member could elect to withdraw or reduce their coverage without being charged $20 per month for the maximum coverage of $250,000. We took...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01864
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He purposely declined SGLI coverage when he separated from active duty in April 2000 and entered the Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) program. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003- 01864 in Executive Session on 2 December 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03546
The coverage, by law, was automatic unless the member declined the coverage. On 31 October 2002, the applicant completed an SGLV 8286A, electing to decline FSGLI coverage for her spouse. The coverage, by law, was automatic for all members of the Armed Forces who had a spouse and/or children, unless the member declined coverage.
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02897
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPS recommends the application be denied, and states in part, that there is no evidence that an injustice occurred. The coverage, by law, was automatic for all members of the Armed Forces who had a spouse and/or children, unless the member declined coverage. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 02-02897...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02798
There is no evidence in the applicant’s military personnel records indicating she declined SGLI coverage during April 2001. She failed to decline SGLI coverage prior to her effective retirement date of 1 November 2002. The evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 16 January 2004, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00442
She filed another declination form effective 15 January 2003. She finds it incredible that anyone, including the government, would take out a life insurance policy on her and her family without her knowledge or consent and then expect her to pay the expense. The ARPC website also had information about the change, with instructions regarding what to do if the member wanted to decrease coverage or wished to decline.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01911
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPS recommended denial. She served two weeks as an IMA reservist in August of 2002 and received monthly LES statements from September 2002 on, even though she was obligated to one two-week tour a year. The applicant indicates that she was on active duty in April 2001 when the law was changed; however, she presents no documentation to indicate she declined coverage at that time.