RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00615
                       INDEX CODE:  100.00

      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  None

      SSN        HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her  records   be   corrected   to   reflect   she   declined   Family
Servicemember’s Group Life Insurance (FSGLI) coverage; and that she be
granted a refund of the premiums that were  deducted  for  the  period
September 2002 through December 2002.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She changed Reserve status from inactive to active, Category E  on  23
September 2002, but she did not receive a notification to  update  her
SGLV 8286 until late November or early December 2002.   She  submitted
her initial SGLV paperwork in December 2002, in which she elected  not
to include coverage for her spouse.  She received  her  bill  and  was
charged for September through December 2002 for spouse  coverage.   It
is unjust to charge her for coverage she never intended to take.   She
further states she was not eligible for coverage previous to September
2002, and the paperwork wasn’t immediately available to her.  She does
not live close to her unit to personally  in  process.   She  believes
that for new members, especially Reservists not co-located with  their
units, a minimum period of time should be allowed to decline  coverage
without requiring payment.

Applicant's complete submission,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 5 June 2001, Public Law 107-14, Survivor Benefits  Improvement  Act
of 2001, was passed.  The  law  expanded  the  SGLI  program  and  was
established to provide spouse and or child 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 ARPC/DPS states the applicant has not  submitted  any  evidence  to
indicate an injustice occurred.  The applicant  was  notified  of  the
automatic family coverage and the new law and declination  procedures.
The notifications were mailed to the applicant’s  home  address.   She
submitted a SGLV 8286A on 27 December 2002 declining  FSGLI  coverage.
The declining of coverage becomes  effective  the  first  day  of  the
following month the  election  was  declined.   According  to  Defense
Accounting and Finance Services (DFAS), the  applicant  owes  premiums
for family  coverage  from  September  through  December  2002.   They
recommend the member’s request  be  denied.   However,  if  the  Board
favorably considers the applicant’s  request,  the  record  should  be
changed to reflect the member  elected  not  to  participate  in   the
FSGLI program on 1 November 2001 and the $52.00 debt be  forgiven  and
all debts purged from her records.

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  she  was
separated from active duty on 26 July 2001 and according to  ARPC  the
letters were mailed in August and October 2001, two months  after  she
was separated.  She does not recall receiving  the  notifications,  if
she had she probably dismissed it because  she  was  in  the  inactive
reserves and not eligible for SGLI.  She became  eligible  to  receive
SGLI when her status changed in September 2002.  In November 2002, she
was notified to update her emergency data card and SGLI; she  complied
in December 2002.  When the paperwork was completed, her coverage  was
backdated to September 2002, not July 2001.

She further states this injustice is not related to whether or not she
was notified by mail (in 2001) that spousal coverage  was  an  option.
The injustice is that (in 2002, a year later) it took four months  for
ARPC to accomplish in processing her paperwork due to  the  fact  that
she is not co-located with her  unit  and  had  to  complete  all  her
paperwork via mail; there is no  “one-stop”  shopping  for  Individual
Mobilization Augmentees (IMAs).  She did not  want  spousal  coverage;
she declined coverage the first opportunity the option  was  presented
to her and she should not be
required to  pay  for  coverage  because  ARPC  didn’t  give  her  the
paperwork the first day she was eligible for SGLI.

Applicant’s complete response is attached 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.   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  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or   injustice.
Applicant’s contention regarding the  length  of  time  ARPC  took  to
process her in-processing paperwork is duly noted;  however,  had  the
applicant’s spouse became a fatality during the contested time period,
the proceeds of the FSGLI coverage would have  been  paid  to  her  in
accordance with the public law.  The applicant has not shown that  she
did not have adequate time to decline coverage after  being  initially
notified of the new law.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrates the existence of an  error  or  an  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-
2003-00615 in Executive Session on 15 April 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 A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Feb 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ ARPC/DPS, 7 Mar 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Mar 03.
   Exhibit D.  Applicant’s Response, dated 24 Mar 03.




                                   JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
                                   Panel Chair