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 September 2004.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She does not recall notification of having to decline FSGLI coverage. She
is sure had she heard of or read any notification concerning FSGLI, she
would have dismissed it as not concerning her or her spouse, since they
both are active duty military and do not have any dependents. If she was
made aware that military to military would be affected by the new FSGLI in
2001, she would have followed proper procedures to decline the additional
overage just as she did to lower her SGLI coverage to $50, 000, when the
amount was automatically raised to $250,000 in 2001. She feels finance
bears responsibility in this matter and believes if finance had deducted
the first premium payment due in November 2001, she would have noticed a
difference in her pay and questioned it. The military personnel flight did
not do enough to explain the difference between SGLI and FSGLI.
In support of her application, the applicant provided a personal statement,
SGLV Form 8286, Servicemember’s Group Life Insurance Election and
Certificate, and SGLV Form 8286A, Family Coverage Election.
Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the rank of master
sergeant (E-7). She declined FSGLI coverage on 1 September 2004
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPF recommends the application be denied. DPF states the Air Force
leadership took adequate steps to inform all members of this new program
and 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 $50,000 for the period 1 November
2001 to 30 September 2004.
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 10
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 from November 2001 to
September 2004. 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-2004-03186:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Oct 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letters, AFPC/DPF, dated 2 Nov 04 w/atchs.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Nov 04.
BARBARA J. WHITE-OLSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02827
_________________________________________________________________ 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. 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. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Nov 04.
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 | 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 | CY2006 | BC-2006-00964
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. Applicant claims that DEERS personnel explained that FSGLI applies only to service members with dependents and not to active duty military members with an active duty spouse who are already covered under SGLI. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and...
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 | CY2006 | BC-2005-03487
In this respect, we note that Public Law 107-14 established the FSGLI program that was implemented on 1 November 2001, making it possible for servicemembers to provide up to $100,000 coverage for their spouse and $10,000 coverage for their dependent children through the Office of Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance. On 19 May 2005, she again declined FSGLI coverage and has been refunded the premiums from June 2005 through October 2005. ...
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-2002-03371
_________________________________________________________________ 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-2003-02974
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and stated despite what the OTS personnel stated she had provided the Board with only information she was given regarding the SGLI program. She states that had she seen the FSGLI premiums being deducted from her pay, she would have taken action to decline coverage. _________________________________________________________________ THE...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03610
Since inception of the additional insurance program in October 2001, additional money has been deducted from his pay for the additional coverage for her. _________________________________________________________________ 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...