RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00442
            INDEX CODE: 128.14
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She  be  reimbursed  for  overpayment  of  her  Servicemember’s  Group  Life
Insurance (SGLI) for the period 1 April 2001 - 1  January  2003  and  Family
Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance  (FSGLI)  premiums  for  the  period  1
November 2001 - 1 January 2003.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On or about 22 May 2000 she declined SGLI  coverage.   In  early  2001,  she
removed  herself  from  the  IMA  program  and  transferred  to   the   non-
participating ranks.  On September 11, 2001, her AFSC was impacted by  stop-
loss and her transfer did not become effective until May 2002.  She did  not
perform any duties from September 2000 to  May  2002.   In  late  2002,  she
applied for reinstatement to the IMA program and  her  request  was  granted
effective 20 December 2002.  In January 2003, she opened her LES, which  she
had not done since October 2000 and discovered that  since  April  2001  she
had been charged for SGLI for herself and family and had a debt  balance  of
$555.00.  She never requested reinstatement of  coverage  and  assumed  that
this was a clerical error that could be easily corrected.   Upon  contacting
the appropriate office, she was stunned to be  told  that  this  change  was
done by an act of Congress and that she had  to  decline  the  coverage  and
also that this information was never  disseminated  to  Reservists  but  was
probably posted on the base somewhere.  Since she had not  been  to  a  base
since September 2000, she  could  not  have  know  about  this.   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.  This type of action flies in  the  face
of logic and our democratic  system.   Imagine  if  this  were  put  into  a
commercial context.  No court in the country would allow such an  injustice.
 No other entity is allowed to send a product to  a  consumer  without  that
consumer’s consent and then demand payment be rendered.  The whole  idea  is
ludicrous.  She is an adult with a college education and a  law  degree  and
doesn’t need anyone, especially the government, to make sure  that  she  has
life insurance.  She finds this quite offensive  and  that  it  was  foisted
upon her without her knowledge.
In support of her appeal, applicant provides  copies  of  her  LES  for  the
periods  June  and  July  2000  and  January  2003.   Applicant’s   complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data extracted from the military  personnel  data  system  (MilPDS)  reveals
that on 20 December 2002, the applicant became a member  of  the  Individual
Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) program.  Her Total Federal Service  Commission
Date is 10 September 1993 and she is  currently  serving  in  the  grade  of
captain, with a date of rank and effective date of 31 July 1996.

The remaining 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.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPS  recommends  the  application  be  denied.   DPS  states  that  the
applicant was sent a notice concerning the  new  law  during  the  month  of
August/October 2001 to her mailing address at:  (HOME ADDRESS).  The  letter
contained detailed instructions regarding the  new  policy.   Spouse  and/or
children coverage was automatic by law for  every  participating  member  of
the Armed Forces.  HQ ARPC extensively announced  the  program  change.   An
article was included in the January/February 2001 issue of the  Air  Reserve
Personnel Update and again in the May/June 2001  issue.   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.

The ARPC/DPS evaluation is attached at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

When she  changed  to  a  nonparticipating  status,  reading  magazines  and
checking websites was not on her current list of activities.   Additionally,
she did not receive a letter at her home regarding this matter.  A  lack  of
response should never be grounds for charging for an item,  even  if  it  is
federal law.  The whole mechanism of instituting coverage that  is  expected
to be paid for without authorization is ludicrous.   Our  government  should
not operate in this manner.  Applicant’s letter 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  error  or  injustice   warranting   reimbursement   for   her
Servicemember’s Group  Life  Insurance  (SGLI)  and  Family  Servicemembers’
Group Life Insurance (FSGLI) premiums deducted from her pay.  The  applicant
indicates that while in a nonparticipating  status,  reading  magazines  and
checking websites were not on her priority list; however, we note  that  the
Air Reserve  Personnel  Center  took  extensive  measures  to  announce  the
program changes and it was the applicant’s  responsibility  to  make  a  new
election or to refuse  these  benefits.   Additionally,  we  note  that  the
mailing  address  the  Air  Reserve  Personnel  Center  used  to  send   her
notification of the FSGLI increase is the  same  address  indicated  on  her
BCMR application as:  (HOME ADDRESS).  In view of the foregoing, we  believe
that Air Force Reserve authorities made every reasonable  effort  to  notify
the applicant of the requirements set forth in Public Laws 106-419 and  107-
14 and 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  do  not  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 this application in  Executive
Session on 15 April 2003 provisions of AFI 36-2603:

           Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chairman
           Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
           Mr. Edward Parker, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR  Docket  Number
BC-2003-00442:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 February 2003 w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, ARPC/DPS, dated 3 March 2003 w/atchs.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 March 2003.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 11 March 2003.




            JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
            Panel Chair