Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03848
Original file (BC-2002-03848.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-03848
            INDEX CODE:  100.03

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be reimbursed the Family Servicemembers’ Group  Life  Insurance
(FSGLI) premiums deducted from her pay.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While she and her military spouse were stationed at  Izmir  Turkey,
their servicing military personnel flight (MPF) was at Incirlik  AB
Turkey.  Any transactions had to be faxed or mailed to them,  often
times getting lost by the command support staff or at the air base.
 When they were reassigned to Eielson AFB and received their Nov 02
paycheck, they realized that they had  outstanding  debts  for  the
FSGLI which they immediately cancelled.  They were told by the  MPF
that the debt would remain outstanding due to the debt  being  back
dated to Nov 01.  They are 110% certain they had  not  heard  about
declining the FSGLI, nor did they ever want the coverage.

In support of her appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 5 June 2001, Public Law 107-14,  Survivor  Benefits  Improvement
Act of 2001, established an expanded SGLI program to provide spouse
and/or  children  coverage  in  the  event  of  their  death.   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.

___________________________________________________________________




AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPW reviewed this application and recommended  denial.   In
their view, the evidence provided by the applicant was insufficient
to support her claim.  On 3 Jan 03,  additional  documentation  was
requested, but the applicant did not respond.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at  Exhibit
C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 21 Mar 03 for review and comment within 30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office (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 error or injustice.  We took notice of
the applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the
case; however, we note that she has  not  responded  to  AFPC/DPW’s
request for additional information in order that her request  could
be  processed.   Should  the  applicant   provide   the   requested
additional documentation, we would be  willing  to  reconsider  her
petition.  Absent such evidence, we agree with  the  recommendation
of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for
our decision that the applicant has failed to  sustain  her  burden
that she has suffered either an error or an injustice.   Therefore,
based on the available evidence of record,  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 AFBCMR Docket  Number
02-03848 in Executive Session on 25 July 2003, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
      Mr. Edward Parker, Member
      Mr. Jackson Hauslein Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Nov 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPW, dated 7 Mar 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Mar 03.




                                   JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
                                   Panel Chair


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03849

    Original file (BC-2002-03849.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. ___________________________________________________________________ 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. Applicant's Master...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03862

    Original file (BC-2002-03862.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In January 2002, she went to the Customer Service Section at the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) in Keflavik, Iceland, to decline the spousal portion of the new FSGLI coverage. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant explained that she did not respond to AFPC/DPW’s request for additional documentation because there was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02018

    Original file (BC-2003-02018.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant did not respond or provide the additional information needed to sufficiently evaluate her claim. As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00128

    Original file (BC-2003-00128.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Aviano MPF told her there was no way to recover this money. Applicant paid FSGLI premiums from August 2002 to November 2002. _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01393

    Original file (BC-2003-01393.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPW requested the applicant provide a copy of her SGLV 8286A, Family Coverage Election Certificate, declining coverage and any documentation to support her claim. Applicant did not respond or provide the additional information needed to sufficiently evaluate her claim. The HQ AFPC/DPW evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03863

    Original file (BC-2002-03863.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In January 2002, he went to the Customer Service Section at the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) in Keflavik, Iceland, to decline the spousal portion of the new FSGLI coverage. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant explained that he did not respond to AFPC/DPW’s request for additional documentation because there was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00665

    Original file (BC-2003-00665.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 5 June 2001, Public Law 107-14 established the FSGLI program that was implemented on 1 November 2001, making it possible for servicemembers to provide up to $100,000 coverage for their spouse and $10,000 coverage for their dependent children through the Office of Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance. The applicant married an active duty member of the Army on 2 August 2001. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPW recommends the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02449

    Original file (BC-2003-02449.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 13 June 2003, the applicant declined FSGLI coverage on SGLV 8286A, Family Coverage Election. The applicant’s Leave and Earnings Statement dated for the month of May 2003, indicates a total debt of $360 for FSGLI premiums from 1 November 2001 through 30 April 2003. DPW states that in accordance to public law, although premiums had not yet been deducted from her pay, the applicant’s spouse was insured for $100,000 for the period 1 November 2001 through 30 June 2003.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00106

    Original file (BC-2003-00106.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00106 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reimbursed for Family Servicemember’s Group Life Insurance (FSGLI) premiums he paid for the period of 1 August 2002 through 31 January 2003. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPW...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02974

    Original file (BC-2003-02974.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and stated despite what the OTS personnel stated she had provided the Board with only information she was given regarding the SGLI program. She states that had she seen the FSGLI premiums being deducted from her pay, she would have taken action to decline coverage. _________________________________________________________________ THE...