Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04021
Original file (BC-2003-04021.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-04021

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show he declined coverage for  the  Family
Servicemember’s  Group  Life  Insurance  (FSGLI)  program  since   its
inception on 1 October 2001, for his wife and children, and cancel all
outstanding balances relating to this program.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was never informed, nor did he enroll in the FSGLI program.  He was
placed in the program without his knowledge or his authorization.   He
learned of this situation in September 2003.

In  support  of  his  request,  the  applicant  provided  a   personal
statement, a copy  of  SGLV  Form  8286A,  Family  Coverage  Election,
Servicemember’s Information, and several SGLI Premium Notice Letters.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Air Force  Reserves  in  the
grade of major.  On 20 November 2003,  the  applicant  declined  FSGLI
coverage on SGLV 8286A,  Family  Coverage  Election.   A  letter  from
AFRPO/FMFQ-P, dated 18 September 2003, indicates a debt balance in the
amount of $354 for FSGLI.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPS recommends denial.  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.   An  article  was  included  in   the
November/December 2001 issue of the Air Force Reserve Personnel Update
and  again  in  the  May/June  2001  issue.   The  ARPC  website   had
information about the changes, along with instructions on what  to  do
if you wanted decreased coverage or wished to  decline  coverage.   In
addition, information was posted on the “Above & Beyond” ARPC website.
 They conclude there has been no evidence of any injustice towards the
member.

ARPC/DPS complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states that the ARPC/DPC advisory opinion is unfair  and
unacceptable.  He feels that it is not his  responsibility  to  ensure
that ARPC/DPSSE accomplishes its tasking with accuracy and timeliness.
 He believes that due to their poor organization they allowed  him  to
be enrolled into an insurance program that he never knew existed,  was
never directly contacted on, never signed for or gave  his  permission
to be enrolled in such a program, he never received a declination form
so that he could decline coverage, and he  never  received  a  billing
statement that showed a balance was due to family coverage.

He concludes by saying  that  he  was  required  to  sign  and  submit
paperwork to enroll in SGLI and doesn’t  understand  why  he  was  not
required to sign to enroll his family in the FSGLI.  He states that he
should not be legally or financially held responsible for un-enrolling
from a program that he never enrolled his family into from the  start.
He believes the problem and fault rests with DPSSE and their  lack  of
time and manpower to  keep  members  directly  informed.   Advertising
campaigns via newspapers and the internet are not a  valid  method  of
informing members of  mandatory  and  involuntary  enrollment  into  a
benefit program.  Two-way direct communication  and  verification  are
what is required legally and as a courtesy to Reservist.

His complete submission, with attachments, 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 he
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  his  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 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-
04021 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 20 Nov 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Letter, ARPC/DPS, dated 30 Dec 03.
      Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jan 04.
      Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 20 Jan 04.





      JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
      Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00830

    Original file (BC-2003-00830.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. His MPF could not find a copy of his letter declining coverage. HQ ARPC extensively advertised the change to the program, including an article in the Air Reserve Personnel Update, and the notifications sent to the applicant’s address contained information regarding the FSGLI changes.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | bc-2003-01378

    Original file (bc-2003-01378.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The coverage, by law, was automatic unless the member declined the coverage. However, as of this date, no response has been received by this office. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2003-01378 in Executive Session on 2 December 2003, 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01347

    Original file (BC-2003-01347.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He sent in payments marking out family coverage but this was not sufficient to cancel. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPW recommends denial of the request and states the applicant claims he never has been notified of the automatic family coverage. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03546

    Original file (BC-2002-03546.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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-2002-03642

    Original file (BC-2002-03642.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She submitted an SGFLV 8386A declining spouse coverage. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPS states that all members of the Participating Individual Ready Reserve were notified concerning the new law and declination procedures in August and October 2001. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00615

    Original file (BC-2003-00615.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ 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-2003-00351

    Original file (BC-2003-00351.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his application, the applicant submits a personal statement; a copy of his Family Coverage Election form, dated 19 October 2002; and a copy of his leave and earnings statement, dated 22 January 2003. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPS recommends the application be denied. DPS states the applicant was sent a letter to his home address in New Orleans explaining the new FSGLI coverage.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201184

    Original file (0201184.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Title 38 U.S.C., Section 1965(5)(B) and Section 1967(a) states that a member who is assigned to a participating position shall be automatically insured under SGLI for an automatic coverage for $250,000, unless the member reduces or declines coverage. They indicated that Title 38 U.S.C., Section 1965(5)(B) and Section 1967(a) states that a member who is assigned to a participating position shall...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03371

    Original file (BC-2002-03371.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ 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-2003-03710

    Original file (BC-2003-03710.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03710 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reimbursed for the Family Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (FSGLI) premiums deducted from his pay. He states that had he seen the FSGLI premiums being deducted from his pay, he would have taken action to decline coverage. ...