Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02278
Original file (BC-2006-02278.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-02278
            INDEX CODE:  128.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE:  31 JANUARY 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be reimbursed for Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (SGLI) payments
from Sep 2005 to Jul 2006.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

After her separation from  active  duty,  she  purchased  a  life  insurance
policy and subsequently declined SGLI when she  transitioned  into  the  IMA
program in Oct 02.  She was having problems  accessing  “My  Pay;”  however,
when she was able to log online in June there were three Leave  and  Earning
Statements (LESs) that she had not reviewed which showed SGLI  payments  had
been deducted.

She should not have been automatically reenrolled  and  charged  SGLI  after
having declined it initially for the following reasons:  1)  Nowhere on  the
SGLI election and certificate does  it  state  members  must  re-decline  if
there are changes to SGLI; 2)  According to the IMA guide,  it  states  that
“you have the option to elect, in writing, either a reduced coverage  or  no
coverage.”  It does not state  members  would  be  automatically  reenrolled
when SGLI changes and that each member must re-decline.

In support of the application, the applicant submits  an  excerpt  from  the
IMA Guide, LESs, and her SGLV Form 8286.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was honorably discharged from the Air Force  Reserves  in  the
grade of major on 25 Oct 02.

Examiner’s Note:  On 11 May 05, a new Public Law was  enacted  by  President
Bush for all active duty military members  in  regards  to  an  increase  in
SGLI.  This enactment automatically reenrolled active duty military  members
into the SGLI program with an effective date of 1 Sep 05.  In order for  the
applicant to decline the reenrollment, she would have needed to  submit  her
declination NLT 30 Sep 05.  It appears the total amount  deducted  from  the
applicant for the period in question is $260.00.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ ARPC/DPPE recommends denial.  DPPE states HQ ARPC extensively  advertised
the change to the SGLI program; however, there were  no  individual  notices
mailed to members.  An article was issued and the AFPC website  was  updated
to reflect the upcoming changes and  instructions  on  how  to  decrease  or
decline coverage.

DPPE states Public Law 109-13 did not have a  provision  to  exclude  people
who had previously declined coverage.  It was designed to ensure that  every
member and their  family  members  were  protected  by  making  the  overage
automatic.  DPPE received the applicant’s SGLV Form 8286 dated 10 Jul 06  to
decline SGLI coverage.  The system  was  updated  to  reflect  her  election
effective 28 Jul 06.

DPPE states the change to the SGLI program was  extensively  advertised  and
the member failed to accomplish SGLV Form  8286  within  the  allotted  time
specified in law.  DPPE states if  the  decision  is  to  grant  the  relief
sought, her record should be  corrected  to  show  she  elected  to  decline
coverage under SGLI, effective  1  Sep  05,  and  the  debt  owed  for  SGLI
premiums be removed.

The complete DPPE evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force  Evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  for
review and comment on 11 Aug 06.  As of this date, this office has  received
no response (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 probable error or injustice warranting  reimbursement  for  the
applicant’s SGLI premiums deducted from her pay.   The  applicant  indicates
that she should not have been  automatically  reenrolled  and  charged  SGLI
premiums after initially declining coverage.  However, we  note  that  prior
to the enactment of the new SGLI program, it was widely advertised  by  ARPC
through advertisements, a base newspaper article, and  update  of  the  ARPC
website to include detailed instructions  on  how  to  decrease  or  decline
coverage.  In view of the foregoing, we believe that Air  Force  authorities
made every reasonable effort to notify the  applicant  of  the  requirements
set  forth  in  Public  Law  109-13,  and  agree  with   the   opinion   and
recommendation of  the  office  of  primary  responsibility  and  adopt  its
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that no basis exists to  reimburse
the premiums withheld.  Therefore, we do not recommend granting  the  relief
sought in this application.

________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2006-
02278 in Executive Session on 20 September 2006,  under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

           Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
           Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member
           Mr. Wallace F. Beard Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Jul 06.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ ARPC/DPPE, dated 7 Aug 06, w/atchs.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Aug 06.




                                  MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                  Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00777

    Original file (BC-2006-00777.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00777 INDEX NUMBER: 100.03 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 16 Sep 07 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her record reflect she elected reduced coverage under the Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (SGLI) effective 1 Sep 05, and is entitled to a $186.00 refund of premiums for the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200894

    Original file (0200894.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The coverage, by law, is automatic for all members of the Armed Forces who have a spouse and/or children, unless the member declines coverage. In addition to the letters, articles were published in the September/October and November/December 2001 Air Reserve Personnel Update explaining the change to the program. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number 02-00894 in Executive Session on 24 July 2002...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0101572

    Original file (0101572.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The provision also stated that within the month of April 2001, any PIRR member could elect to withdraw or reduce their coverage without being charged $20 per month for the maximum coverage of $250,000. The applicant further states that she did not receive the ARPC update and that the website “does not say that the older forms are not valid anymore or that I have to resubmit a form even though I already had one on file.” Additionally, the website contains a section specifically addressing...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02798

    Original file (BC-2003-02798.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    There is no evidence in the applicant’s military personnel records indicating she declined SGLI coverage during April 2001. She failed to decline SGLI coverage prior to her effective retirement date of 1 November 2002. The evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 16 January 2004, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03439

    Original file (BC-2002-03439.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: During the time frame of October and November 1998 she completed a stop SGLI form at Robin Warner AFB, GA, with the understanding that it would be processed. In this respect, we note that the applicant was not participating with her unit and may not have been aware of the new law concerning SGLI, which took effect in April 2001. JOSEPH G. DIAMOND Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2002-03439 MEMORANDUM FOR THE...

  • 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 | CY2001 | 0102154

    Original file (0102154.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPW indicated that Section 312 of Public Law 106-419, 1 Nov 00, automatically increased the level of SGLI coverage for all eligible military members from $200,000 to $250,000 effective 1 Apr 01. Members who failed to complete a new SGLV 8286 during the month of Apr 01 to elect a lower amount of coverage or “no coverage” were automatically covered for $250,000 in accordance with public law. It is...

  • 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 | 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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-01911

    Original file (BC-2003-01911.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPS recommended denial. She served two weeks as an IMA reservist in August of 2002 and received monthly LES statements from September 2002 on, even though she was obligated to one two-week tour a year. The applicant indicates that she was on active duty in April 2001 when the law was changed; however, she presents no documentation to indicate she declined coverage at that time.