RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00548
INDEX CODE: 128.14
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
She be reimbursed for premiums paid on her Family Servicemember’s Group
Life Insurance (FSGLI) as of 1 November 2001.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Premiums for FSGLI have been deducted from her pay since 1 November 2001.
This in incorrect because her spouse was serving on active duty. He
separated on 30 September 2002. He is entitled to four months of Veterans
Group Life Insurance (VGLI) coverage which expired 31 January 2003. She
has completed the proper documentation to opt out of FSGLI coverage.
In support of her application, the applicant submits copies of her Leave
and Earnings Statement (LES); her spouse’s DD Form 214, Certificate of
Release or Discharge from Active Duty; and spouse’s Certificate of VGLI
Life Insurance. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is
at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the rank of staff
sergeant (E-5). Her Total Active Federal Military Service Date is 17
September 1997.
On 20 and 27 March 2003, AFPC/DPW notified the applicant that they were
unable to process her request without additional documentation. DPW
requested the applicant provide a copy of her SGLV 8286A, Family Coverage
Election Certificate, declining coverage and any documentation to support
her claim.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPW recommends the application be denied. DPW states that the
applicant did not provide the additional information needed to sufficiently
evaluate her claim. The DPW evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant states that at the time of the implementation of FSGLI, she
was TDY to Maxwell AFB, AL, attending the Academic Instructor Course. She
had been TDY since 19 October 2001 and had not been notified of the FSGLI
policy being enacted prior to her departure. While TDY, she had no way of
being notified nor was she aware of the option to opt out. On 25 November
2001 when she returned from her TDY, she learned of the FSGLI policy and
immediately contacted her local Military Personnel Office (MPF), signed the
refusal letter, and halted the FSGLI withdrawal. Had she been notified of
the terms of the Act and had the means to refuse the coverage, she would
have. She is requesting that all funds that were withdrawn be reimbursed
to her on the basis that she was neither given the appropriate warning nor
the opportunity to take the necessary actions to prevent funds from being
withdrawn due to her military training requirements.
To support her rebuttal, the applicant submitted copies of her TDY orders
and Training Diploma. The applicant’s rebuttal, with attachments, are 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. The applicant was properly charged with a
debt as a result of the passage of Public Law 107-14, effective 1 November
2001, which automatically extended Servicemember’s Group Life Insurance
(SGLI) coverage to spouses and children if the military member was an SGLI
participant. Since the applicant did not provide the additional
information requested in order to sufficiently evaluate her claim, it is
our opinion that no basis exists to reimburse the premiums withheld.
Therefore, the applicant’s request is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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 2 December 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chairman
Mr. Jackson Hauslein Jr., Member
Mr. Edward Parker, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2003-00548:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Feb 03 w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPW, dated 20 Mar 03 w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Jul 03.
Exhibit E. Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 1 Aug 03 w/atchs.
JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00665
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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-01393
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-2002-03862
_________________________________________________________________ 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
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-2003-02783
The coverage, by law, was automatic for all members of the Armed Forces who had a spouse or child(ren), unless the member declined coverage. 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 - 30 June 2003. 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 office of primary responsibility and...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01091
Applicant did not respond or provide the additional information needed to sufficiently evaluate her claim. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02449
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-2002-03863
_________________________________________________________________ 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-2003-00116
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 25 April 2003, for review and comment. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded the applicant should be reimbursed for the FSGLI premiums she paid from November 2001 to December 2002. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Apr 03.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03984
In support of her application, the applicant submits a copy of her Family Coverage Election form, dated 4 October 2002; and a copy of her leave and earnings statement, dated 1-30 November 2002. Since the applicant did not provide the additional information requested in order to sufficiently evaluate her claim, it is our opinion that no basis exists to reimburse the premiums withheld. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant...