| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr. | Member | ||
| Mr. Thomas Lanyi | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That she be reimbursed the family-rate dental care plan premiums she paid from her divorce in June 1999 to February 2001.
APPLICANT STATES: That she removed her husband from DEERS (Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System) when they divorced in 1999. The dental care plan premiums should have gone down to the lower one child dependent rate. It did not. The carrier, United Concordia, is reimbursing her for the period February 2001 to December 2001. Supporting evidence is as listed on the DD Form 149.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
She enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 August 1992. She married on an unknown date. She enrolled in the military dental care plan on an unknown date for family coverage.
On 8 June 1999, the applicant divorced. She apparently updated DEERS at that time to show her new marital/dependent status (from married with one child to single with one child). From the leave and earnings statements (LESs) provided (most of June 1999 through August 2000 and January 2001), it appears she continued to pay family rate premiums through January 2001.
The applicant’s June 1999 LES, Remarks section notes, “Family Member Dental Plan Premiums Increase in July (Single: $8.53; Family: $21.33).” Her dental plan deduction for this month was $20.00. Her July 1999 LES, Remarks section notes, “Family Member Dental Plan Premiums Increase in July (Single: $8.53; Family: $21.33.).” Her dental plan deduction for this month was $21.33. Her LESs for the months August 1999 through June 2000 show her dental plan deductions for those months to be $21.33. Her May 2000 LES, Remarks section notes, “Family Member Dental Premiums Will Decrease in July 2000: Single Rate - $7.88; Family Rate - $19.70.” Her June 2000 LES, Remarks section notes, “Family Member Dental Premiums Will Decrease in July 2000: Single Rate - $7.88; Family Rate - $19.70.” Her LESs for the months June and August 2000 show her dental plan deductions for those months to be $19.70.
The applicant was separated on 25 December 2001 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 for parenthood.
Army Regulation 600-8-14 prescribes policies, responsibilities, and procedures for the use and accountability of identification documents, DEERS, and the Real-Time Automated Personnel Identification System (RAPIDS). It describes DEERS as an automated database system that provides a way of confirming who is eligible for military benefits, such as medical care, commissaries, exchanges, and so forth. Data on all soldiers, retired and other sponsors, and their eligible family members, is maintained on DEERS.
The Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation, paragraph 410103 states that an allotment system is provided to help military service members adjust their personal and family finances to military service. It is a convenience and privilege not to be exploited or abused. Paragraph 410302 states that a discretionary allotment includes payment of premiums for dental and health insurance for the benefit of family. Paragraph 410801 states that a properly executed Authorization to Start, Stop, or Change an Allotment, DD Form 2558, or a written request from the member or an automated data exchange (from specific organizations) may be used to change an allotment.
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:
1. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
2. An allotment is a direction from the soldier to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) to pay a certain amount of money to a certain payee on a recurring basis. DFAS assumes no role as a guarantor of the goods or service obtained in exchange for the allotted payment. DFAS merely executes the instructions of the soldier.
3. The dental program in effect at the time functioned essentially as a contract between the soldier and the service provider. DFAS provided a convenient mechanism for payment, via an allotment, but did not assume responsibility for the service by the dental provider, nor did DFAS guarantee the soldier’s payment.
4. The applicant’s overpayment of dental plan premiums did not result from an error of the Government or its agents. The applicant formed an agreement with the dental plan provider. When her circumstances changed, she was entitled to adjust that agreement but she failed to do so. As it stands, the dental plan provider has received a windfall through an error of the applicant. Were the Board to “indemnify” the applicant for her loss, both the dental plan provider and the applicant would receive a windfall.
5. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__JNS__ __EJA__ __TL___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002069661 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/06/25 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03030
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03030 INDEX CODE: 125.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be reimbursed the difference between the single and family rate premium from United Concordia (Tricare Dental) for the total period of enrollment. ______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03030
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03030 INDEX CODE: 125.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be reimbursed the difference between the single and family rate premium from United Concordia (Tricare Dental) for the total period of enrollment. ______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022462
Overall, several errors were committed in relation to her pay in December 1998 and then her retirement formula, computation of her retired pay, the length of time she was placed on the TDRL, and the more recent debt that occurred as a result of an audit of her pay records by DFAS. The applicant provides: * Self-authored breakdown of each LES * Listing of what appears to be her credit report * Divorce decree * Audit Request Form * Letter, dated 3 August 2009, from DFAS * Letter, dated 22...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02590
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...
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 | CY2008 | 20080004398
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 | CY2004 | BC-2003-03434
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPW recommends the application be denied. Although premiums had not yet been deducted from her pay, DPW states her spouse was insured for $100,000 for the period 1 November 2001 through 30 June 2003. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 20 April 2004, under the provisions of AFI...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00568
Prior to the servicemember’s 1 October 1963 retirement, he was married and elected spouse and child RSFPP coverage, Option 4 - that allowed the member to terminate RSFPP premium payments in the event the beneficiary lost eligibility. We find no evidence he attempted to elect SBP coverage for the applicant during any of the four open enrollment periods provide by law. Regardless, it appears the servicemember made no attempt to elect SBP coverage for the applicant when he was eligible during...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120007559
On 28 April 2011, by letter to DFAS, the applicant stated: * She had enclosed the necessary documentation DFAS requested regarding the FSM's death * She had been informed the last retirement payment would be made via direct deposit, and further payments would be terminated due to the FSM's death * She understood she was not entitled to compensation regarding his retirement pay because she was not his dependent * She was designated as his natural insurable interest SBP beneficiary on his DD...