RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00349
INDEX CODE: 100.00
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
She be refunded the Servicemember’s Group Life Insurance (SGLI)
premiums deducted from 1 April 2001 to present.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She declined SGLI coverage on 19 March 2001. She did not authorize
the change from no coverage to $250,000 in April 2001.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Section 312 of Public Law 106-419, 1 November 2000, automatically
increased the level of SGLI coverage for all eligible military members
from $200,000 to $250,000 effective 1 April 2001. Implementing
guidance dated 12 March 2001 stipulated that members eligible for SGLI
on 31 March 2001 with continued eligibility on 1 April 2001 would have
their SGLI increased to $250,000 effective 1 April 2001, regardless of
any prior election. Members who had elected less than $250,000
coverage prior to 1 April 2001 could avoid any higher premiums
provided they completed a new SGLV 8286 in April 2001 to retain their
previously elected coverage.
The applicant submitted SGLV 8286 on 19 March 2001 declining SGLI
coverage.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPW states the Grand Forks AFB leadership used the base
military access channel, base newspaper and the February-March
2001 pay statements to inform the Grand Forks AFB military community
of the change to the SGLI coverage. All members who wished to elect
lower coverage or no coverage, should have submitted a new SGLV 8286
during the month of April 2001, requesting lower coverage or decline
coverage, if not, they were automatically enrolled for the $250,000
coverage in accordance with law.
AFPC/DPW further states the applicant has not provided any
documentation indicating she was not aware of the change in the SGLI
coverage and that it was her responsibility to make an election to
decline the insurance increase. Furthermore, the Grand Forks
leadership took the necessary steps to inform all service members of
the increase in coverage. Also, the applicant had adequate time in
April 2001 to submit an election to decline the increased coverage.
DPW recommends the requested relief be denied.
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. She asked the
military personnel flight (MPF) technician if she would have to come
back and decline coverage after April 2001. The MPF technician
informed her that since she was declining coverage so close to the new
coverage, it would not be necessary for her reaccomplish the form to
decline coverage again.
She did not provide any documentation because the MPF told her she was
not allowed to provide any information. The MPF also told her they
would send her request to Randolph AFB and if the Board needed further
information they (the Board) would contact her.
She challenges the portion of the advisory which states she was
covered for $250,000 and if she had become a fatality her family would
have received $250,000. Had she become a fatality, her records would
have been reviewed to see if she declined coverage. The MPF and her
Unit Deployment Manager had copies of the form in which she declined
coverage. Each time she was deployed during this time frame she hand
carried her mobility folder, which has a copy of the decline coverage
letter. Therefore, it can only be speculation that if she became a
fatality that her family would have been the paid the coverage.
She asks the Board “Why would she decline coverage two weeks prior to
the new coverage taking effect, only to have to return
two weeks later to repeat the process all over again?” Had she been
told she would have to reaccomplish the process to decline coverage
again, she just would have waited the two weeks and would have done it
all at the same time.
During her career she learned the value of trust and accountability.
She holds herself accountable for not closely reviewing her monthly
leave and earning (LES) statements. However, when a qualified person
from the MPF told her it was not necessary to decline the coverage in
April 2001, she did not think she had to double and triple check to
ensure the information was incorrect.
The applicant’s complete response is attached 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice warranting relief. The
applicant contends the Military Personnel Flight technician advised
her that since she was declining coverage so close to the new
coverage, it would not be necessary for her to reaccomplish the
declination. After reviewing the evidence of record, we believe that
had the applicant been properly informed she would have taken the
necessary action to reaccomplish the paperwork to decline the SGLI
coverage. The applicant has established to our satisfaction that she
did not receive proper counseling regarding declining SGLI coverage
which resulted in her being charged for SGLI premiums from 1 April
2001 to present. Therefore, in view of the foregoing, we recommend
her records be corrected to the extent indicated below.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that she executed an SGLV
Form 8286, Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (SGLI) Election
Certificate, declining any and all coverage, effective 1 April 2001.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-00349 in Executive Session on 25 July 2003, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
Mr. Jackson Hauslein, Jr., Member
Mr. Edward Parker, Member
All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Jan 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPW, 14 Mar 03.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Mar 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant’s Response, undated.
JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC- BC-2003-00349
INDEX CODE: 110.00
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction for Military Records and under the
authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat
116) it is directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to , to be corrected to show that
she executed an SGLV Form 8286, Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance
(SGLI) Election Certificate, declining any and all coverage,
effective 1 April 2001.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
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...
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 | 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,...
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...
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 | CY2003 | BC-2002-03709
Apparently, Mountain Home AFB had failed to enter a code in their records to show joint spouse and exemption from SGLI spouse coverage. There is no declination statement in the member’s record. No premiums were deducted from her pay until she arrived at Laughlin AFB in September 2002.
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-2002-02700
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...