Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01913
Original file (BC-2006-01913.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

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).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In November 2001, her active duty spouse paid  for  SGLI  in  his  own
right and had the maximum allowable insurance for  the  carrier  400K.
She took no action to enroll him in DEERS and was not advised  of  the
requirement to do so.  Additionally,  she  did  not  elect  additional
coverage nor advised of the requirement to do so.

A FSGLI deduction began 1 March 2006 as a result of  her  active  duty
spouse retiring.  Without  notice  or  warning,  on  1  April  2006  a
garnishment of $580 appeared  on  her  LES.  Inquiry  from  our  local
finance, DFAS, Cleveland, and DFAS, Denver found this debt dates  back
to November 2001, for life insurance on her then active  duty  spouse,
that she did not request and did not have the opportunity to accept or
decline.  Currently her pay is being garnished for FSGLI (dating  back
to November 2001). She did not enroll her active duty  spouse  as  her
dependent and did not elect FSGLI because she did not  have  an  adult
dependent. Her dependent minor children were covered under her SGLI as
riders to the policy.  If her service record needs to be corrected, it
must be to enroll her active duty spouse under DEERS as her  dependent
and decline the additional insurance coverage.

In support of her application, she submits a copy of her (LES).

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Air Force in  the  grade  of
senior master sergeant.

Applicant’s April LES shows a $580.00 debt.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPFC recommends denial and states it is their opinion the
Peterson AFB leadership took adequate steps as directed to inform all
members of this program. Additionally, the applicant did not provide
any documentation to indicate she was not aware of this change and her
responsibility to make an election decision. In accordance with public
law, the applicant's spouse was insured for $100,000 for the period 1
November 2001 through 31 January 2006. Had the applicant's spouse
become a fatality during this period, the proceeds of the $100,000
coverage would have been paid to her IAW 38 U.S.C. 1970.

AFPC/DPFC complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states as a  point  of
clarification,  she  is  requesting  reimbursement  for  the  premiums
deducted from May 2006 to present. As previously stated, she  was  not
aware additional coverage was being provided for her then active  duty
spouse. She had been into the Military Personnel  Flight  on  Peterson
AFB on several occasions since November 2001 to enroll  a  child  that
had become her dependent in DEERS, request coverage  for  him  through
the family SGLI, and annual record reviews as required.  Additionally,
she has reviewed her insurance coverage at least twice since PCSing to
Wright Patterson and no one indicated to her the requirement to  elect
or decline coverage for her active duty spouse.

Applicant's complete response, 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.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice.  After thoroughly  reviewing  the
evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, the
majority of the Board believes she may have been mislead regarding her
FSGLI eligibility.  In this respect, the majority of the  Board  notes
that although the applicant was automatically enrolled in  the  FSGLI,
based on her failure to decline coverage during the month of  November
2001, premiums were not initially deducted from her  pay.   Since  her
LESs indicated that FSGLI premiums were not being  deducted  from  her
pay, the majority of the Board believes it was reasonable for  her  to
believe that she was not enrolled in the FSGLI. She  states  that  had
she seen the FSGLI premiums being deducted from  her  pay,  she  would
have taken action to declined coverage. Therefore, the majority of the
Board recommends the applicant’s records be corrected  to  the  extend
indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on  31  October  2001,
she  executed  SGLV  -  8286A,  Family  Coverage  Election,  declining
coverage for her spouse, effective 1 November 2001.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket  Number  BC-2006-
01913 in Executive Session on 15 August 2006, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. LeLoy W. Cottrell, Member
                 Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member

By a majority vote, the Board recommended  to  grant  the  applicant’s
request.  Ms. Cottrell voted to deny the applicant’s request and  does
not      wish      to      submit       a       Minority       Report.
                                                       The   following
documentary evidence pertaining to  Docket  Number  BC-2006-01913  was
considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Jun 05, w/atch.
      Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPFC, dated 30 Jun 06.
      Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jul 06.
      Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant’s Response, 19 Jul 06.



      RICHARD A. PETERSON
      Panel Chair
AFBCMR
1535 Command Drive EE Wing 3rd Floor
Andrews AFB, MD 20762-7002


      Your application to the Air Force Board for Correction of
Military Records, AFBCMR BC-2006-01913, has been finalized.

      The Board determined that the military records should be
corrected as set forth in the attached copy of a Memorandum for the
Chief of Staff, United States Air Force.  The office responsible for
making the correction(s) will inform you when your records have been
changed.

      After correction, the records will be reviewed to determine if
you are entitled to any monetary benefits as a result of the
correction of records.  This determination is made by the Defense
Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS-DE), Denver, Colorado, and
involves the assembly and careful checking of finance records.  It may
also be necessary for the DFAS-DE to communicate directly with you to
obtain additional information to ensure the proper settlement of your
claim.   Because of the number and complexity of claims workload, you
should expect some delay.  We assure you, however, that every effort
will be made to conclude this matter at the earliest practical date.

                       Sincerely




                 RALPH J. PRETE
                 Chief Examiner
                 Air Force Board for Correction
                 of Military Records


Attachment:
Copy of Directive
w/Cy of Proceedings

cc:
DFAS-DE




AFBCMR BC-2006-01913




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:


      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to applicant be corrected to show that on 31 October
2001, she executed SGLV - 8286A, Family Coverage Election, declining
coverage for her spouse, effective 1 November 2001.





JOE G. LINEBERGER

Director

Air Force Review Boards Agency




Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050016135

    Original file (20050016135.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In similar cases, the DFAS has indicated that the DEERS provides the collection data and once a spouse is registered in DEERS, the deduction for FSGLI is made retroactive to 1 November 2001, or the date of marriage whichever is later if no action to decline FSGLI has been taken. Further, the implementation instructions for the FSGLI program clearly stipulated that in the case of married couples on active duty, premiums would be automatically deducted from each spouse’s pay for coverage of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03487

    Original file (BC-2005-03487.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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

    Original file (BC-2006-01073.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2007 | BC 2007 03359

    Original file (BC 2007 03359.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Ultimately, targeting military to military couples demonstrates the flaws in the DFAS and MPF processes that have existed for nearly six years and now the military members are being held financially responsible for DFAS/MPF process and communication errors. For spouses and children of military members with current Servicemembers Group Life Insurance (SGLI) coverage, coverage was automatic and commenced on 1 Nov 01 unless members opted out between 1 Nov 01 and 31 Dec 01. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00964

    Original file (BC-2006-00964.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. 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 | CY2006 | BC-2005-02590

    Original file (BC-2005-02590.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | 20060000439

    Original file (20060000439.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Richard G. Sayre | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Further, the implementation instructions for the FSGLI program clearly stipulated that in the case of married couples on active duty, premiums would be automatically deducted from each spouse’s pay for coverage of his or her spouse. Absent any evidence of record showing the applicant and/or his spouse complied with the DEERS registration procedures and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03144

    Original file (BC-2004-03144.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    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.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080004398

    Original file (20080004398.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 July 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080004398 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant's record does not contain a copy of a declination for FSGLI coverage (SGLV Form 8286A). ALARACT Message 040/2007 (CORRECTED COPY), provided information for Soldiers and commands in all components within the Army of their FSGLI requirements, and to established Army procedures for collecting past due FSGLI premiums from Soldiers who received FSGLI coverage...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02611

    Original file (BC-2005-02611.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. On 9 August 2005, the applicant completed an SGLV Form 8286A, Family Coverage Election, declining coverage. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFC recommended denial indicating 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.