ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-02700
INDEX CODE: 100.00
COUNSEL: NO
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
In the applicant's appeal for reconsideration, he contends he was
miscounseled regarding termination of his SGLI coverage and requests he be
reimbursed Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (SGLI) premiums from 1
April 2001 through 31 December 2001.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant originally declined SGLI coverage on 12 May 1997.
SGLI coverage was increased from $200,000 to $250,000 for all military
members effective 1 April 2001 with the passage of Public Law (PL) 106-419.
The applicant submitted an SGLV Form 8286 on 13 December 2001 to terminate
the deduction of SGLI premiums.
The applicant's request to be reimbursed for his SGLI premiums was
considered and denied by the Board on 15 April 2003. For an accounting of
the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's request for
reimbursement of SGLI premiums, and the rationale of the earlier decision
by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings, with attachments, at Exhibit
D.
On 23 June 2003, the applicant submitted a DD Form 149 requesting
reconsideration based on his being deployed and unable to respond to a
request for additional information. The applicant’s request with
attachments is attached at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPW states all servicemembers who were eligible for SGLI coverage on
31 March 2001 with continued eligibility on 1 April 2001 coverage would
have their SGLI increased from $200,000 to
$250,000, unless the servicemember completed an SGLV Form 8286 electing not
to participate or elected a lesser amount of coverage.
Lackland AFB notified its servicemembers of the pending change to SGLI
coverage by using the base bulletins, newspapers, and the April 2001 pay
statements. The Military Personnel Flight (MPF) Commander advised DPW that
her customer service representatives fully understood the guidance from
AFPC regarding the pending changes in coverage for SGLI and finds it
difficult to support the contention of miscounseling.
AFPC/DPW further states that appropriate measures were taken to notify the
servicemembers in the Lackland AFB community of the changes in the SGLI
coverage and had the applicant become a fatality during the time period in
question his beneficiary would have received a $250,000 payment in
accordance with 38 USC 1970. Therefore based on the information provided,
they recommend the request for reimbursement of premiums from 1 April 2001
through 31 December 2001 be denied.
The AFPC/DPW evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 17
October 2003, for review and response. As of this date, no response has
been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
After careful consideration of the applicant’s reconsideration request and
the documentation he submitted, we are not persuaded to override the
Board's original decision. The applicant alleges the personnel in the MPF
office advised him that if he had previously elected not to participate in
the SGLI program, that he would not have to resubmit another election form
for the change in coverage that would become effective 1 April 2001. The
Air Force Office of Primary Responsibility contacted the Lackland AFB MPF
Commander and she advised them that the customer service representatives at
Lackland were well versed in the guidance from AFPC regarding the SGLI
changes and she finds it difficult to support the contention of
miscounseling. Furthermore, the Lackland AFB used base bulletins and
newspapers as well as April 2001 pay statements to inform the military
community of the upcoming changes in SGLI. According to the leave and
earning statements he submitted, the one for the 1-28 Feb 01 pay period
clearly indicated the SGLI automatic increase. It would appear that he was
notified of the SGLI increase and we find no evidence to support his
miscounseling contention. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary we find no compelling basis to warrant favorable consideration of
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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-
02700 in Executive Session on 1 December 2003, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
Mr. Edward Parker, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit D. Record of Proceedings, dated 25 Apr 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit E. Applicant’s Reconsideration Request, dated 23 Jun 03,
w/atchs.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFPC/DPE, dated 7 Oct 03, w/atch.
Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Oct 03.
JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00349
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that when she declined the SGLI coverage on 19 March 2001 she was aware of the increase that would be in effect on April 2001. The MPF technician informed her that since she was declining coverage so close to the new coverage, it would not be...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02700
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 provided sufficient evidence to support his claim. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC- 2002-02700 in Executive Session on 15 April 2003, under the...
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,...
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...
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...
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...
_________________________________________________________________ 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-2003-00860
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: SGLI premiums for the $250,000 coverage have been taken out since August 2000 until March 2003, while his records reflect $100,000 coverage since August 2000. It is their opinion that the applicant’s Air Force base leadership took adequate steps to inform all members of the increase in coverage and that the applicant had adequate time during the month of April 01 to make a new election and avoid the...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01908
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 | CY2003 | BC-2002-01352
They indicated that after receiving the applicant’s DD Form 149, dated 14 January 2002, they needed additional information to sufficiently evaluate his claim and make an appropriate recommendation. 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 provided sufficient evidence to support his claim. ...