RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03359
		INDEX CODE:  128.14
	 	COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reimbursed for all retroactive Family Servicemembers’ 
Group Life Insurance (FSGLI) premiums deducted from his pay.

The attached SGLV Form 8286A, Family Coverage Election, dated   
24 Sep 07, apply retroactively to 1 Nov 01.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He either declined coverage and the form was lost during the 
electronic records transition or the military personnel flight 
(MPF) never effectively communicated the need to decline 
coverage.  He states that either way, the 69 Defense Finance and 
Accounting Service leave and earnings statements (LESs) he 
received over the timeframe reinforced that he had declined 
coverage since there was no FSGLI deduction.

He is being charged $554 for coverage he never wanted and 
probably declined.  This error was caused by ineffective 
communication on LESs, the MPF, and the DFAS process owners.

Over this time, he received 69 LESs that indicated he was not 
paying for or receiving FSGLI and that he was married to a 
military spouse.  Anytime a FSGLI message was in the remarks 
section he had only looked at the deductions to confirm that he 
had declined. Since his wife is a military spouse he reviewed 
her LESs as well over the time frame in question.  They received 
138 documents each with two official indicators (276 total) that 
he and his wife had both elected not to take the FSGLI and that 
the Defense Eligibility Enrollment System (DEERS) database 
reflected their 1987 marriage.  Thus, over the same time period 
the process owners produced 138 documents that, based on their 
current actions were in error.  

In the course of trying to get this injustice corrected, he 
states he dealt with three Altus MPF, three DFAS, and two Air 
Force Personnel Center (AFPC) personnel.  To him, it was clear 
that from these dealings and after almost six years of 
implementing this process the only person that fully understood 
the process was the senior individual at AFPC.  To hold a member 
financially responsible for errors with communication and 
processes that the process owners still do not fully understand 
nearly six years after implementation is not only unjust but 
absurd.  Moreover, the way the FSGLI process was implemented and 
the way the DEERS’s reconciliation process is being conducted 
unfairly targets/discriminates against military married to 
military couples (especially those with no dependents).  
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.

In an Air Force that puts “Integrity First,” the receipt of 138 
LESs with 276 indications that FSGLI had been declined since it 
was not being deducted and Basic Allowance for Quarters (BAQ) 
with Dependents shows “Spouse” demonstrates the broken DFAS/MPF 
process and ineffective communication and should clearly over-
rule any “advertising campaigns” and “it’s the law” arguments 
from process owners.  It should also be noted that “the law” did 
not specify the process for declination or declination 
notification.  It was the policy makers that determined how 
members would be notified on the declination requirements and 
they clearly chose procedures and processes that were and are 
inadequate.  

The applicant states he also believes the FSGLI advertising 
overlapped with the automatic SGLI increase from $200K to $400K.      

It is grossly unjust to be retroactively charged for ineffective 
MPF and DFAS communication and processes.  The fact that he 
noted/declined FSGLI after the first LES it appeared on supports 
his position.

He further states the DFAS/MPF process error occurred while he 
and his wife were assigned at five different installations in 
three major commands and a joint agency, which further support 
his contention that the process owners do not fully understand 
the FSGLI process and the linkages to DFAS and member LESs.

DFAS is unjustly deducting $554 over six months for retroactive 
FSGLI payments for coverage he never wanted.  

In support of his request, the applicant provided a copy of his 
24 Sep 07 FSGLI election. 

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

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 5 Jun 01, President Bush signed the Veteran’s Survivor 
Benefits Improvement Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-14) into law, 
which was the enabling legislation for the FSGLI program.  
FSGLI, which was implemented DoD-wide on 1 Nov 01, made it 
possible for servicemembers to take out low cost insurance on 
their spouse for up to $100,000 (premium charged) and $10,000 
life insurance for dependent children (no cost) through the 
Office of Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance.  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.     

Specific instructions were also provided to all Air Force bases 
on the procedures they needed to follow in order to ensure that 
military married to other military members were properly charged 
for this new benefit.  

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPFC recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  It is 
the opinion of DPFC that the Brooks City Base’s leadership took 
adequate steps as directed to inform all members of the new 
program and that the applicant had adequate time between 1 Nov 
01 and 31 Dec 01 to make an election decision.  Additionally, 
the applicant did not provide any documentation to indicate that 
he was not aware of this change and his responsibility to make 
an election decision.  

The AFPC/DPFC complete evaluation, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit B.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 7 Dec 07 for review and comment within 30 days.  As 
of this date, this office has not received a 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 error or injustice.  We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation 
of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has 
not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the 
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis 
to 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 Docket Number BC-
2007-03359 in Executive Session on 19 Mar 08, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 4 Oct 07.
    Exhibit B.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPFC, w/atchs, dated 15 Nov 07.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Dec 07.




                                   XXXXXXXXXXXXX
                                   Panel Chair