RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00671
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (SGLI) election for “NO”
coverage be honored and the debt for premiums in the amount of $340.00
be removed.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She never had SGLI. When she transferred from the Air National Guard
on 1 October 2001 to the Air Reserves, she signed paperwork declining
SGLI. When she became affected by STOP-LOSS (Oct 01), she was never
told she needed to sign paperwork declining something she never had.
In support of the applicant's appeal, she submits DD Form 149.
Applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is presently serving in the Air Force Reserve in the
grade of technical sergeant.
Applicant was assigned to the 46th Aerial Port (T4), Dover, DE from 29
December 2000, until 1 September 2002. ARPC/DPS has no record that the
member declined coverage at that time. According to Reserve Order A-
0306 dated 24 July 2001, the applicant was informed she was covered
under SGLI until her loss date of 1 September 2002.
According to their pay system, the applicant declined SGLI coverage on
1 October 2002 by signing SGLV Form 8286, Servicemen's' Group Life
Insurance Election Statement. Applicant owes for premiums from 1
April 2001, until 21 August 2002, at total of $340.00.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION
ARPC/DPS recommends the request be denied.
ARPC/DPS complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and stated that when
she transferred to the Air Force Reserves in January 2001, she was
never told that she had to opt out of SGLI again. No payments were
made (by her) during her stay in the Reserves (3 months). Months
later, after receiving a letter notifying her of a top-loss status,
again, she was never told she had to once again opt of something she
never had. She never heard from her Reserve unit again until she was
notified that she was released from stop-lose. Months later, she
received a letter notifying her of this debt to SGLI. She would also
like to add that the letter she received was incorrect in that she
elected to withdraw from SGLI in April 2001. Her signature/initials
does not appear on any of the correspondence accepting SGLI.
During her entire military career, she has never had SGLI. So why
would she think that after her military career is over, she be covered
by something she rejected 15 years ago.
If this debt cannot be erased, then she would like for it be forgiven.
She recently graduated from college, and she is facing over $60,000
in a student loan. She is currently working part-time.
Applicant’s complete response 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 an error or injustice. After a thorough review of
the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not
persuaded the applicant should be reimbursed for the SGLI premiums she
paid from April 2001 to August 2002. Under the provisions of Public
Law 106-419, every eligible member of the Armed Forces was
automatically covered, regardless of any prior election. The
applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these
assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override
the rationale provided by the office of primary responsibility. We
therefore agree with their recommendation and adopt the rationale
expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed
to sustain her burden of having suffered either an error or an
injustice. In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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 BC-
2003-00671 in Executive Session on 25 July 2003, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Jr., Member
Mr. Edward H. Parker, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Mar 03.
Exhibit B. Letter, ARPC/DPS, dated 27 Mar 03.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Apr 03.
Exhibit D. Applicant’s Response, dated 14 Apr 03.
JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01797
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: No FSGLI was collected from her pay until 15 May 2003 when 19 months ($380.00) of “debt” was suddenly taken. All members of the Participating Individual Ready Reserve (PIRR) were mailed a letter with information concerning the new law and declination procedures, in August and October 2001 (Atch 1). _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00442
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. 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.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00615
_________________________________________________________________ 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 received her bill and was charged for September through December 2002 for spouse coverage. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03371
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPS states the applicant alleges she declined SGLI coverage in March 2000 and again in April 2002, however, since the law was not effective until 1 November 2001, her March 2000 declination was not applicable and she needed to decline the coverage again on 1 November 2001 to ensure that she had not incurred a debt. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02260
The Military Personnel Database (MilPDS) indicates the applicant was discharged from the Air Force Reserve effective 15 July 2002 in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6), for completing his term of service. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he executed an SGLV 8286, Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance (SGLI) Election and...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03546
The coverage, by law, was automatic unless the member declined the coverage. On 31 October 2002, the applicant completed an SGLV 8286A, electing to decline FSGLI coverage for her spouse. 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.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03439
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: During the time frame of October and November 1998 she completed a stop SGLI form at Robin Warner AFB, GA, with the understanding that it would be processed. In this respect, we note that the applicant was not participating with her unit and may not have been aware of the new law concerning SGLI, which took effect in April 2001. JOSEPH G. DIAMOND Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2002-03439 MEMORANDUM FOR THE...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04021
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was never informed, nor did he enroll in the FSGLI program. HQ Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) Entitlements sent a letter on the expanded SGLI coverage to all Reservists clearly explaining the program and extensively advertised the changes to the program. They conclude there has been no evidence of any injustice towards the member.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00107 INDEX CODE 100.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (SGLI) election for “NO” coverage, dated 10 February 1999, be honored and he be reimbursed for the monthly premiums deducted from his pay for SGLI coverage of $250,000 since 1 April 2001. The...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02607
In support of her application, the applicant provided a personal statement. Since the applicant declined coverage effective 31 May 2003, and coverage was terminated, it is our opinion that no basis exists to reimburse the premiums withheld for the preceding months. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the...