| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti | Analyst |
| Ms. Karol A. Kennedy | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Ronald E. Blakely | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaughnessy | Member |
2. The applicant requests that he be reimbursed the Tricare Dental Plan premiums he paid for his son after his son entered the U.S. Military Academy (USMA).
3. The applicant states that his Tricare Dental Plan premiums should have been reduced when his son entered the USMA.
4. In support of his request he submits an itemized account of how much he overpaid, an amount totaling $147.72. These overpayments are for the months July 1998, March through June 2000, and August through December 2000. He submits an e-mail from Tricare Dental informing him that they refunded the difference in premiums from 2 January 2001, but Tricare Dental could not make refunds that are for payments over a year old; that it would require the authority of this Board to make those reimbursements. He also submits DD Forms 1172, Application for Uniformed Services Identification Card, Deers Enrollment, completed by his son and himself. Those forms show that the applicant’s son became a cadet on 29 June 1998.
5. The applicant's military records show that at the time the applicant submitted his request to the Board, he was a colonel serving on active duty.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant’s Tricare Dental Plan premiums were properly reduced a month after his son became a cadet, and were properly reduced on and off from the date the applicant’s son became a USMA cadet. This is clearly indicative that proper procedures had been taken to change the applicant’s Tricare Dental Plan status, but administrative error resulted in his being billed improper amounts. This assessment is further reinforced by the Tricare Dental Plan’s reimbursement of the overpayments that were within its ability to repay
2. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by reimbursing to the individual concerned all overpayments he made to the
Tricare Dental Plan based on the coverage of his son after his son’s enlistment into the USMA on 29 June 1998.
BOARD VOTE:
__reb____ ____kak_ ____teo_ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
__________Karol A. Kennedy____
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2001063151 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011211 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 128.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004099937C070208
The applicant provides the following documents in support of her application: Leave and Earning Statements (LESs) for the period March 2000- February 2001, minus the month of June 2000; Divorce Decree, dated 25 October 1996; UCCI Letter with Reimbursement Check for Overpayment of Premiums, dated 10 June 2002; and UCCI Dental Premium Rate Change Notice, dated 4 February 2002. The evidence confirms the applicant was eligible to be enrolled in the TDP at the single enrollment rate of $7.63 per...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072814C070403
He states that difficulties in the issue of military identification (ID) cards and updating the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) resulted in a dental bill for treatment received by his eligible dependent son in August 2000 never being paid. It also confirms that the applicant paid the appropriate dental premiums during the period and the bill in question should have been covered under the TRICARE Family Member Dental Program (TFMDP). The Board notes the applicant’s...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-00508
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 27 Feb 04, for review and comment within 30 days. The applicant continued to pay the premiums for dental coverage in good faith until the Defense Manpower Data Center updated his retirement status in the Defense On-Line Enrollment System, notified him of the error and refunded his paid premiums of $288.84. Exhibit...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069661C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That she be reimbursed the family-rate dental care plan premiums she paid from her divorce in June 1999 to February 2001. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011234C070208
The applicant’s cadet records are not available to the Board. Gears failed to complete the period of active duty specified in his Agreement with the Navy. Had the applicant maintained the Army's weight standard, it could be argued he would have passed the 2-mile run event.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014346
Counsel states the applicant was a cadet at the USMA from 1997 until his final disenrollment in 2003. Counsel points out that the Army advised the applicant that he would be recommended for separation if he did not pass the 90-day APFT retest. A cadet who fails to meet the [APFT] standards may be separated from the [USMA] .
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081376C070215
The evidence of record confirms that the applicant has been a member of the ARNG in good standing since 1 May 1998, and that he has paid all TRICARE dental program premiums due since that date. Thus, the Board concludes that it would be appropriate to provide the applicant payment for the dental services he received while validly enrolled in the program. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by reimbursing the individual concerned $945.40, the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070019029
The BTO indicated that if the applicant failed any portions of his Army minimums during his retest, he would recommend separation proceedings be initiated against him under the provisions of paragraph 10.24 Regulation, USMA and he could be required to reimburse the U.S. Government for the cost of his education. He was separated for failing 3 APFTs. The advisory opinion stated the applicant was well aware that failure to meet fitness standards for both the Army and USMA could lead to...
CG | BCMR | Dental and Optical Benefits | 2002-148
2. the Coast Guard Personnel Command that The Board has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the provi- The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant's military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submissions, and applicable law: sions of 10 U.S.C. The Board agrees with the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard and the Commander of the preponderance of the evidence in the record indicates that by December 19, 2000, the applicant properly...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110014021
k. Counsel states that the former Regulations, USMA 10.24 provided that a cadet without a medical profile who was determined to have repeatedly failed the CPFT could be separated from the USMA. The counselor provided him tips to improve his ability to pass the CPFT (The Record of Proceedings did not indicate if he took the 90-day test noted in the 12 May 1994 counseling); f. learned in a 1 February 1995 counseling that he was being considered as a possible physical education failure for...