| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member | ||
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
2. The applicant requests, in effect, that he be reimbursed $86.95 for erroneously collected dental premiums collected from his pay for the period March through May 2000.
3. The applicant states, in effect, that he did not authorize dental coverage for March through May 2000, while he was in a retired status.
4. The applicant’s military records show that he was involuntarily retired in March 2000 and remained in that status until being ordered back to active duty on
1 June 2000. As of the date of his application to this Board, the applicant was still serving on active duty at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
5. The record shows that after being involuntarily retired on 1 March 2000, the applicant was recalled to active duty on 1 June 2000. His leave and earnings statement (LES) for the period 1 through 30 June 2000 indicates that $106.65 was collected for dental program premiums. Only $19.70 of this total was for dental coverage in the month of June 2000, the remaining $86.95 was for coverage during the period 1 March through 31 May 2000, while he was in a retired status.
6. The applicant has attempted to resolve this issue through Army finance officials, the Army DEERS/RAPIDS Project Office, United States Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), and United Concordia Companies Incorporated (UCCI), the dental program contractor, since June 2000 without result.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that he should be reimbursed $86.95 for erroneous dental premiums that were collected from his June 2000 pay, and it finds this claim has merit.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was in a retired status from March through May 2000, and that he was recalled to active duty on 1 June 2000. Given this status, he should not have been required to pay dental premiums for the period he was retired. His June 2000 LES confirms that dental premiums for the entire period between 1 March and 30 June 2000 were collected from his monthly pay for this period.
3. In the opinion of the Board, only the $19.70 amount due for dental coverage for the month of June 2000 was a valid collection from the applicant’s monthly pay for June 2000. The remaining $86.95 collected for dental coverage for the period 1 March through 31 May 2000 was not a valid collection because the applicant was in a retired status during this period. Thus, the Board concludes it would be appropriate to reimburse the applicant this amount at this time.
4. 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 showing that the individual concerned was not liable for dental premiums while he was in a retired status from 1 March through 31 May 2000; and by reimbursing him the $86.95 of erroneous dental premiums deducted from his pay for this purpose.
BOARD VOTE:
RKS__ __JM___ __JHL __ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ______ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ______ DENY APPLICATION
Joann H. Langston
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2002078023 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/07/DD |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | N/A |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | N/A |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | N/A |
| DISCHARGE REASON | N/A |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 1021 | 100.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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...
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 | CY2001 | 2001055925C070420
Had the enrollment form used been accepted, the applicant would have been eligible for the SBP had the FSM survived for only three more weeks. The Board cannot change the date of the FSM’s death; however, the Board concludes that it would be appropriate to correct his records to show that he enrolled in the SBP on 12 June 1979. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the FSM completed the DA Form 4240 on 12 June 1979 and enrolled in...
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:
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 | 2002081704C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Further, notwithstanding the applicant’s claim that she was not at fault for the debt, and it was the responsibility of her chain of command to review her monthly LES and inform her of the overpayment , there is no evidence to show that the applicant did not receive her monthly LESs during this period. Her monthly LESs clearly listed the zip code on which her BAH payment...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2011-089
This final decision, dated January 12, 2012, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record to show that he is not indebted to the government for over $9,000.00 resulting from an alleged overpayment on travel claims that he submitted during a period of active duty. The letter stated the following: [The applicant’s] travel debt resulted from being paid twice for the same periods of travel in 2004. The Coast Guard...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00988
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPWC recommends denial of the applicant's request for reimbursement of FSGLI premiums from 1 Oct 06 through 31 Dec 07. The applicant did not report her marriage until Dec 07 (14 months later), and is, therefore, responsible for the FSGLI premiums for that period of time. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061427C070421
DoD noted that there presently exists in current law substantial authority to counteract the effects of the statute of limitations in the context of military records corrections. It would be appropriate to show that the applicant’s mother, the FSM’s spouse, submitted the DD Form 1884 on 1 April 1983, thereby entitling her to the SBP annuity. That the applicant’s mother, the FSM’s spouse, be paid an annuity based upon the above corrections retroactive to 23 March 1983, the date of the FSM’s death.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02827
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She does not recall being informed of the requirement to decline FSGLI coverage for her spouse who was on active duty and already covered by his SGLI. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded the applicant should be reimbursed for the FSGLI premiums she paid from November 2001 to September 2003. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Nov 04.