RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03610

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

All debts associated with the Family Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance
(FSGLI) for spousal coverage be removed from her record.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Until recently, she was unaware that she was  enrolled  in  the  FSGLI
program and has no interest in  participating  in  the  program.   She
never elected to have the additional coverage for her spouse  and  did
not realize that sign-up was automatic if you did not decline coverage
by signing a form.  She has never received  any  information,  stating
she was enrolled and paying premiums.  Premium rates  changed  several
times over the past two and one half  years  and  she  never  received
notification of the change.  She can obtain additional life  insurance
for her spouse at much better rates than  those  offered  through  the
FSGLI program.

In support of her request, the applicant provided a personal statement
and  a  copy  of  SGLV   Form   8286A,   Family   Coverage   Election,
Servicemember’s   Information.    Her   complete   submission,    with
attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Air Force  Reserves  in  the
grade of major.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/DPMB recommends disapproval.  The FSGLI program became  effective
on 1 October 2001.  Individuals who  had  a  spouse  were  allowed  to
cancel FSGLI coverage during  the  period  of  1  October  through  31
December 2001 without any penalty.  Several news articles were written
on the automatic enrollment for  FSGLI  and  cancellation  requirement
from October though December 2001; to  include  advertisement  on  the
leave and earnings statement.  Additionally, the applicant’s servicing
MPF took the  following  actions  to  inform  members  of  the  FSGLI;
advertisement via the Starlifter; the Wing’s newsletter, prior to  and
after the implementation of the FMSGLI coverage. Emails were  sent  on
several occasions to all Commander’s  and  First  Sergeants  reminding
them to brief their unit members  of  the  coverage.   Representatives
from customer service were stationed in the Wing  Auditorium  for  two
UTA’s to accommodate the mass of members declining the coverage on and
after the coverage was implemented.

AFPC/DPMB complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states that she is not claiming that she was  not  aware
of the opportunity to obtain additional insurance for spouses.  She is
claiming that her husband opted to have additional  coverage  for  her
and elected to obtain additional life insurance coverage  for  himself
through USAA.  Since inception of the additional insurance program  in
October 2001, additional money has been deducted from his pay for  the
additional  coverage  for  her.   They  believed  that  they  declined
additional coverage on her husband and based that  assumption  because
no deductions were taken from her pay.   She  can  show  documentation
that  additional  supplemental  life  insurance  for  her  spouse  was
purchased and paid for from USAA during the period  of  October  2001,
until the present.  She can  also  provide  evidence  that  the  rates
offered by USAA for the same  terms  of  insurance  coverage  is  more
competitive than those offered through the SGLI  program.   She  hopes
that the Board will reconsider the recommendation  to  disapprove  her
case and remove the pending charges for life insurance  benefits  that
she never opted to have.

Her complete submission 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  FSGLI  premiums
she paid from November 2001 to November 2003.  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.

4.    The applicant's case is adequately documented  and  it  has  not
been shown that a personal appearance with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s)   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing 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 Docket  Number  BC-2003-
03610 in Executive Session on 6 August 2004, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member
                 Mr. Edward H. Parker, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:


      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Oct 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Letter, AFRC/DPMB, dated 13 Jan 04.
      Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Jan 04.
      Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Feb 04.



      JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
      Panel Chair