Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200909
Original file (0200909.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00909
            INDEX CODE  100.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be  reimbursed  for  the  Servicemember’s  Group  Life  Insurance  (SGLI)
premiums paid during April through November 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 (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

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 had adequate time  during  the  month
of April 2001 to make a new election and avoid the increased  premium.   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.  Furthermore, since the applicant  elected  to  continue
his coverage on 4 January 2002 at the higher amount, he will continue to  be
charged for the increased coverage.

The AFPC/DPW evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________







APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states  that  he  agrees
that there was adequate notification of the SGLI policy change; however,  he
thought that it only applied to current SGLI  participants.   Since  he  was
not a participant in the SGLI, he assumed it would not affect him.

Applicant’s compete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  We therefore agree with the opinion and recommendation  of  the
Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as  the
basis for our conclusion that no basis  exists  to  reimburse  the  premiums
withheld.  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  02-00909  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 8 Jan 02, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPW, dated 15 Apr 02.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Apr 02.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 13 May 02.




             JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
                                  Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0102059A

    Original file (0102059A.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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

    Original file (BC-2001-03442.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ 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,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02563

    Original file (BC-2002-02563.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. We therefore agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that no basis exists to reimburse the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01908

    Original file (BC-2002-01908.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Effective 1 April 2001, Public Law 106-419, automatically increased the level of SGLI coverage to $250,000 for all military members, until the members could elect reduced coverage or no coverage, regardless of any prior election. The AFPC/DPW evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states, in part, that Kirtland AFB leadership did not advise that if you had...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0102154

    Original file (0102154.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ 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 | CY2002 | 0103224

    Original file (0103224.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2001-03623

    Original file (BC-2001-03623.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0103535

    Original file (0103535.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201462

    Original file (0201462.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200293

    Original file (0200293.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ 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. We therefore agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that no basis exists to reimburse the premiums withheld. Exhibit B.