RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02590
            INDEX CODE: 128.14
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  20 FEB 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her records be corrected to  show  she  declined  coverage  for  the  Family
Servicemember’s Group Life Insurance (FSGLI) and she be  reimbursed  $330.00
for premiums she paid.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The premiums for the FSGLI were not deducted  from  her  monthly  pay  until
November 2003.  As a result of Finance’s failure to make monthly  deductions
for the coverage from her pay, she was not allotted time  to  correct  these
records and receive a refund of the premiums paid.

In support of her application, the applicant provided a copy of DFAS Forms
702, Defense Finance and Accounting Service Military Leave and Earnings
Statement (LES) for November 2001 and 0ctober 2003 through January 2004.

Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant currently serves in the Regular Air  Force  in  the  grade  of
master sergeant.  She is married to  an  active  duty  enlisted  member.   A
stipend overpayment in the amount of $330  was  deducted  from  her  pay  in
three increments of $100.00, one for $20.00 and another for $10.00.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPC 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.  According to  DPPRS,  an  official
from Moody AFB, publicized the new  FSGLI  program  to  base  personnel  via
announcements through commanders, first sergeant,  and  Top  Three  members.
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  provided  a  piece  of
FSGLI advertisement directly off of her November 2001 LES showing  that  she
was well aware of this program.

She stated she was deployed in November 2001, but no  orders  were  provided
to support her case.   The  applicant  was  mailed  a  memorandum,  dated  8
September 2005,  requesting  she  provide  her  deployment  orders  and  any
supporting documentation to further support her case  within  30  days.   No
response was received from the applicant by 12 October 2005, 33 days later.

The DPC evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states she was reassigned to Moody AFB, Georgia on 1 October  2001
and deployed in support of Operation  Enduring  Freedom  in  November  2001.
She processed through the mobility line in  November  2001,  for  deployment
and was unable to read her LES until  February  or  March  2002.   No  FSGLI
deductions premiums were being deducted from her  pay  at  this  time.   The
applicant states she thought the stipend deducted from her pay was a  result
of her adding her husband and daughter as her dependents.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPFC recommends denial in  response  to  the  additional  documentation
provided by the applicant.  The applicant states that her  permanent  change
of station and subsequent deployment prevented  her  form  receiving  timely
information regarding the FSGLI.  She also sates that because no  deductions
were taken out of her pay after December 2001, she believed FSGLI  had  been
declined.

DPFC restates the fact that the Air Force  ran  an  aggressive  campaign  to
make member aware of the program and their benefits.  Military  to  military
members  were  also  advised  of  their  responsibility  to  update  Defense
Enrollment and Eligibility Retrieval System (DEERS) dependent date in  order
to be properly charged for this new benefit.  Since the  applicant  did  not
update her dependent  spouse  in  DEERS  until  after  her  military  spouse
retired from the Air Force in  October  2003,  the  Defense  and  Accounting
Finance Service  (DFAS)  did  not  begin  to  charge  FSGLI  premiums  until
November 2003 resulting in a debt of $330.00 in back premiums.

The applicant also contends that due to her PCS and deployment, she did  not
review her November 2001 LES until after her  return  from  her  deployment.
It may be a reasonable assumption that,  due  to  her  PCS  and  deployment,
there was a delay in her receiving her pay statements  or  her  availability
to access them.  However, she did not deploy until  after  Thanksgiving  and
information regarding FSGLI was posted on the 30  August  2001,  15  and  30
September 2001, 15 October 2001 and 1 and 15 November 2001 LESs.

According to DPFC the November 2001 statement clearly states  to  reduce  or
decline coverage by 31 December 2001  to  receive  a  refund  of  any  FSGLI
premiums.  The applicant states that because no deductions  had  been  taken
out after December 2001 that the coverage was declined.   The  law  provided
for automatic coverage as stated  on  previous  LESs  and  the  member  must
decline or reduce coverage in writing.  DPFC states their  office  does  not
understand how the applicant assumed the FSGLI coverage  would  be  declined
without her active participation,  i.e.,  executing  the  FSGLI  declination
form as instructed by the November 2001 LES.

The DPFC evaluation is attached at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant believes the LES states deductions would begin and  there  was
a 60-day period to withdraw and receive a  full  refund.   Since  the  FSGLI
deductions did not begin on time, she was not afforded  the  opportunity  to
withdraw prior to the 60-day grace period.  Once the deductions started  she
was able to identify them and submitted a declination form prior to the  60-
day time limit.

She states FSGLI is something she would have liked  to  have  had  when  she
first started her family.  Unfortunately, it was not available and  she  had
to find her own family insurance and did  not  need  FSGLI  when  it  became
available.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

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.
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 offices 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 March 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

           Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Panel Chair
           Ms  Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member
           Mr. August Doddato, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR  Docket  Number
BC-2005-02590:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Aug 05, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPC, undated, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Nov 05.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 18 Nov 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit F.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Jan 06.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFPC/DPFC, dated 13 Jan 05.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Feb 06.





                                   KATHY L. BOOCKHOLDT
                                   Panel Chair