RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02827
INDEX CODE: 128.14
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her records be corrected to show she declined coverage for the Family
Member Servicemember’s Group Life Insurance (FSGLI) and she be reimbursed
$438.00 for premiums she paid.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She does not recall being informed of the requirement to decline FSGLI
coverage for her spouse who was on active duty and already covered by his
SGLI. The premiums for the FSGLI were not deducted from her monthly pay.
Had the premiums been deducted from her pay she would have been alerted to
make the change and decline FSGLI. As a result of never having been
notified of FSGLI coverage and Finance’s failure to make monthly deductions
for the coverage from her pay, she requests reimbursement of the premiums.
In support of her application, the applicant provided a copy of DFAS Form
702, Defense Finance and Accounting Service Military Leave and Earnings
Statement (LES).
Her complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant retired in the grade of lieutenant colonel on 30 September
2003. A stipend overpayment in the amount of $438 was deducted from her
separation pay. She served a total of 20 years and 16 days active duty
military service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPF recommends denial. DPF states that the Air Force fully complied
with the law by providing information in advance of implementation so that
members could make an informed decision. Specifically, comments about
FSGLI automatic enrollment appeared in the remarks section of every
member’s LES from 30 August through 15 November 2001. A public affairs
official from the 80th Area Support Group confirmed that the base
newspaper, “The Benelux Meteor,” was delivered to the applicant’s unit of
assignment during this timeframe; at least one article was published
addressing the requirement to decline FSGLI in writing. DPF believes Air
Force leadership took adequate steps to inform all members of this new
program and that the applicant had adequate time to make an election
decision. In accordance with public law, although premiums had not yet
been deducted from her pay, her spouse was insured for $100,000 from 1
November 2001 to September 2003. Had the applicant’s spouse become a
fatality during this period, the proceeds of the coverage would have been
paid to her IAW 38 U.S.C. 1970.
The DPF evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 5
November 2004 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this
office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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 September 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.
_________________________________________________________________
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 8 February 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
Mrs. Barbara R. Murray, Member
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2004-02827:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 Aug 04, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Letters, AFPC/DPF, dated 28 Oct 04 w/atchs.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Nov 04.
BARBARA J. WHITE-OLSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03186
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03186 INDEX CODE: 128.14 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her records be corrected to show she declined Family Member Servicemember’s Group Life Insurance (FSGLI) coverage and she be reimbursed for FSGLI premiums she paid from 1 November 2001 through 30...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02590
The applicant submitted excerpts from her November 2001 LES that stated “Family SGLI effective November 2001, reduce or decline spouse’s coverage by 31 December to receive a refund…” The applicant was provided ample time to decline coverage upon the start of the Air Force’s FSGLI advertisement campaign. She stated she was deployed in November 2001, but no orders were provided to support her case. According to DPFC the November 2001 statement clearly states to reduce or decline coverage by...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03144
The law mandated that coverage for spouses [to include military-married- to-military couples (mil-mil couples)] and dependent children automatically go into effect on the date of implementation so long as the member was insured under the SGLI program, unless the member declined the coverage in writing. The Leave and Earnings Statements provided by the applicant reflect that no premiums were deducted for FSGLI coverage until August 2004. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Nov 04.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00988
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPWC recommends denial of the applicant's request for reimbursement of FSGLI premiums from 1 Oct 06 through 31 Dec 07. The applicant did not report her marriage until Dec 07 (14 months later), and is, therefore, responsible for the FSGLI premiums for that period of time. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01252
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She declined FSGLI coverage in November 2001 because she and her spouse were already paying SGLI premiums. She requested an official inquiry through the AFPC Case Management System, and was provided the following information: 1) $290.00 deducted from her pay was owed for FSGLI premiums from October 2001 through November 2003; 2) a computer “bump” in November 2003 caused FSGLI deductions to be...
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 | CY2006 | BC-2006-01073
DPFC explains the law mandated that coverage for spouses (to include military-married-to- military couples (mil-to-mil)) and dependent children automatically go into effect on the date of implementation so long as the member was insured under the SGLI program. She notes the article does not specifically mention mil-to-mil, or that your active duty spouse is considered your dependent for this program, or that if an election is not made payments would automatically be deducted from your pay. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03709
Apparently, Mountain Home AFB had failed to enter a code in their records to show joint spouse and exemption from SGLI spouse coverage. There is no declination statement in the member’s record. No premiums were deducted from her pay until she arrived at Laughlin AFB in September 2002.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03434
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPW recommends the application be denied. Although premiums had not yet been deducted from her pay, DPW states her spouse was insured for $100,000 for the period 1 November 2001 through 30 June 2003. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 20 April 2004, under the provisions of AFI...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01913
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01913 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 25 DECEMBER 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be reimbursed for premiums deducted from her pay for Family Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance (FSGLI). If her service record needs to be corrected, it must be to enroll her active duty spouse under...