RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            25 May 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20040000025


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |


  The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Terry L. Placek               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Eloise C. Prendergast         |     |Member               |

      The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance
(SGLI) election of her deceased spouse, a former service member (FSM), be
changed to show he elected her, his spouse, as his beneficiary.

2.  The applicant states that when the FSM died, his SGLV 8286
(Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance Election and Certificate) was not on
file in his Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ).  The Servicemembers'
and Veterans' Group Life Insurance Handbook states, in paragraph 6-6, that
if a member does not designate a beneficiary, the insurance will
automatically be paid to the surviving spouse or, if none, to the children
of the member or, if none, to the parents in equal shares.  Paragraph 6.02c
states that, "When completed and dated, the form SGLV 8286 must be
submitted to the member's uniformed service because a beneficiary
designation is not effective until it is received by the uniformed service.
 The uniformed service should immediately date and certify it as received.
It should promptly be placed in the member's personnel file.  Only the
latest beneficiary designation in the member's personnel file will be
considered valid.

3.  The applicant states that, instead of following the procedures outlined
in the Handbook, the Casualty Services Officer contacted the FSM's unit
representative and requested that a search be made for the allegedly
missing SGLV 8286. None was found in the unit personnel section but one was
found at the FSM's off-post residence, which was a room at one of his
friend's house.  The search revealed a cancelled SGLV 8286, dated 13 April
2001, in which the FSM had designated his mother as the primary
beneficiary.  It was a cancelled SGLI     8286 because in February 2002 the
FSM was directed by his first sergeant to update his personnel records.  On
27 February 2002, the FSM updated his DD Form 93 (Record of Emergency Data)
where he designated her and their child as the primary beneficiaries and
his parents as the secondary beneficiaries.  It is clear that on 27
February 2002 the FSM changed beneficiaries when he updated his records;
however, he either did not execute a new SGLV 8286 or the new SGLV 8286 was
never placed in his personnel file.  Hence, the SGLV 8286 dated 13 April
2001 was cancelled, removed from his personnel file, and subsequently found
in his personal belongings after his death.  As a result, the SGLI was paid
to the FSM's mother instead of to her.

4.  The applicant provides a copy of the 13 April 2001 SGLV 8286; an
unsigned copy of an SGLV 8286 indicating the form was received on 13 April
2002; the DD Form 93; a sworn statement dated 13 September 2002 from the
Fort Bliss, TX Casualty Services Officer; a sworn statement dated 18
September 2002 from the FSM's first sergeant; an affidavit dated 30 July
2002 from the FSM's off-post roommate; and a DA Form 1574 (Report of
Proceedings by Investigating Officer/Board of Officers) dated 2 October
2002.
5.  The applicant also provides a 30 April 2004 email from the Office of
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (OSGLI) to the Case Management
Division, Army Board for Correction of Military Records; a letter from the
applicant's attorney to OSGLI; a responding fax dated 6 May 2004 from OSGLI
to the applicant's attorney; an extract from the Servicemembers' and
Veterans' Group Life Insurance Handbook; and an extract from Title 38,
chapter I, part       9 (Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance and Veterans'
Group Life Insurance).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The FSM enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 January 1995.  He was
assigned to Fort Bliss, TX on 2 February 2001, in the rank and grade of
Staff Sergeant,   E-6, as an instructor/writer.

2.  The Fatality Review Board briefing indicated the FSM's family status
as:  having marital problems while at his unit; unsubstantiated allegations
by the applicant of alcohol abuse; and "Separated on MAY 01 – failed
attempts to reconcile in JUN, JUL, AUG 01."

3.  On 13 April 2001, the FSM completed and signed an SGLV 8286-E.  He
indicated that he wanted his mother to be the sole principal beneficiary
and his father to be the sole contingent beneficiary.

4.  On 27 February 2002, the FSM completed and signed a DD Form 93.  The
applicant was listed as his spouse on this form.  His mother was listed as
the beneficiary for death gratuity if there were no surviving spouse or
child (if a soldier is married and/or has children, the government will not
pay the death gratuity to anyone else).  The FSM indicated that he wanted
his mother to be the beneficiary for unpaid pay and allowances (this is an
optional election; anyone may be named even if the soldier is married
and/or has children) and his mother to receive his pay if missing (this is
also an optional election; anyone may be named even if the soldier is
married and/or has children).

5.  The FSM received a bar to reenlistment on 18 April 2002.  His commander
had listed the factors leading to the bar to reenlistment as the FSM's
reluctance to pay the full amount of child support and alimony directed by
the court and his failure to manage his marital affairs.

6.  On 11 May 2002, the FSM was riding with a female passenger on his
motorcycle when an accident occurred, killing both.

7.  In the Casualty Services Officer's sworn statement, she stated that the
FSM's record had no SGLI form when the records were received in Casualty.
She requested the FSM's chain of command do their best to look in the
records section itself, in his personal belongings, or anywhere else that
an SGLI form might be found.  She stated that the unit provided an SGLI
form that they found in the FSM's belongings.  She reviewed the provided
SGLI form and told her supervisor and her Director that no "unusual
beneficiary" counseling had been done.  She reviewed the SGLI form with the
DD Form 93 and determined that the signatures appeared to be the same to
her untrained eye.  She faxed both forms to Headquarters, Department of the
Army.  During the Fatality Review Board, she informed everyone that the
unit provided the SGLI form.  The different dates of the two forms was
discussed and she told the commanding general that, though she was not a
handwriting expert, they appeared the same to her.

8.  In the first sergeant's sworn statement, he stated that in February
2002 he directed all E-6s to update their records for the E-7 promotion
board.  That was when the FSM updated his DD Form 93.  In April 2002, the
FSM's Soldier Readiness Packet (SRP) was expiring so he directed that he,
as well as other soldiers in the unit, update those packets with their
first line supervisor.  According to the FSM's first line supervisor, the
FSM updated his SGLI information.

9.  In the affidavit from the FSM's off-post roommate, the roommate stated
that about three days after the FSM died the Army called him asking him to
pack the FSM's clothes and personal belongs and to look for his SGLI
insurance paper.  He states he found the SGLI insurance paper in a gray
metal box in the FSM's room.  That same day he took the paper to Fort Bliss
and gave it to Sergeant B___.

10.  On 2 October 2002, an investigating officer found that the FSM's unit
correctly processed his SGLI 8286; however, the Personnel Service Battalion
did not comply with the regulation for processing it.  They failed to
ensure the FSM was counseled concerning his unusual beneficiary; the
unusual beneficiary counseling statement was not typed on his SGLI form;
the SGLI form was not filed or was taken from his MPRJ; and during two
different occasions in the year 2002 when the FSM updated his DD Form 93
and when he completed a readiness and deployment checklist, his SGLI was
not updated to reflect his approval to continue to maintain his parents as
his beneficiaries.

11.  The investigating officer found that the SGLI form that named his
parents as beneficiaries was filled out according to regulation with the
exception of the counseling and updating beneficiaries.  The SGLI form was
not in the FSM's MPRJ but it was located in his home in a metal box with
some more mail.  According to OSGLI, the form that displays the most
current date could be submitted for processing of the beneficiary claim.
The SGLI form contained the FSM's signature and the signature of a witness.
 It was determined to still be valid even though it could not be verified
that he had been counseled.  None of the witnesses interviewed were aware
of any other SGLI form.  The investigating officer recommended, in
pertinent part, that OSGLI pay the beneficiary that was listed on the FSM's
April 2001 SGLI form.  Apparently, as of 25 November 2002, no final action
was taken on the findings and recommendation.

12.  OSGLI paid the SGLI benefit to the FSM's mother on 27 June 2002.

13.  The SGLI program is a Department of Veterans Affairs program.  Only
certain portions of the program, such as preparing the SGLV 8286 and
collecting premiums, are administered by the military services.

14.  The Servicemembers' and Veterans' Group Life Insurance Handbook
states, in paragraph 6.02d, that SGLI and VGLI are federal programs and
operated under federal law.  Under federal law, the insured has the
absolute right to name and change the beneficiary at any time without the
knowledge or consent of a prior beneficiary.

15.  Army Regulation 600-8-1 (Army Casualty
Operations/Assistance/Insurance) states, in paragraph 11-29g, that the
designation of all SGLI beneficiaries will remain in effect until properly
changed by the soldier or until the SGLI is automatically canceled or
terminated.

16.  Army Regulation 600-8-1, paragraph 11-30b states that when a soldier
is likely to be survived by family members or parents and names some other
person as a beneficiary, he will be counseled.  At a minimum, the counselor
will advise the soldier that the SGLI is intended to provide some form of
financial security for family members or parents.  Additionally, soldiers
will be informed that election of beneficiaries is a personal choice
requiring careful consideration. If the soldier insists on an unusual
designation, the person providing the counseling to the soldier will insert
the following notation near the bottom of the SGLV 8286: "On (date) this
soldier was counseled regarding this unusual beneficiary designation."

17.  Army Regulation 600-8-1, paragraph 11-33 states the SGLV 8286 will be
reviewed and updated any time there is a change or during any records
audit.  A new SGLV 8286 is not required when the only change is the
soldier's unit of assignment.  If no update is required during any records
audit, the soldier will initial and enter the date in pencil, on the bottom
right margin of the form.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There is no evidence of Department of the Army error in this case.

2.  The FSM properly authenticated an SGLI 8286 on 13 April 2001 in which
he named his mother as the sole principal beneficiary and his father as the
sole contingent beneficiary.  The SGLI 8286 was witnessed.  This
designation would correspond to The Fatality Review Board briefing which
indicated the FSM was having marital problems while at his unit to include
unsubstantiated allegations by the applicant of alcohol abuse and that he
and the applicant separated on May 01 with failed attempts to reconcile in
June, July, and August 2001.

3.  The fact the SGLI 8286 was not annotated that the FSM had been
counseled regarding the "unusual" beneficiary is a harmless error.  The
applicant was a noncommissioned officer.  He would still have been informed
that election of beneficiaries is a personal choice.  It is reasonable to
presume that, considering his marital problems, he would not have changed
his designation.

4.  Contrary to the applicant's contentions that the FSM designated her and
their child as the primary beneficiaries and his parents as the secondary
beneficiaries when he updated his DD Form 93 on 27 February 2002, it is
clear that the FSM failed to designate her as his beneficiary for any
benefits in which he had a choice.  She was merely listed as his spouse on
the form.  The FSM indicated that he wanted his mother to be the
beneficiary for unpaid pay and allowances and his mother to receive his pay
if missing.

5.  Even if the FSM was directed to update his personnel records, a new
SGLI form was not required to be prepared if he did not desire to change
his beneficiaries.  Considering the fact that in February 2002 he
designated his mother as the beneficiary for his unpaid and allowances and
pay if missing, it is reasonable to presume that he would not have changed
his SGLI beneficiary in April 2002.  The FSM's first sergeant stated he was
told by the FSM's first line supervisor that the FSM updated his SGLI
information.  It appears that it was an administrative oversight that the
review date was not penciled on the form and initialed.

6.  While the SGLI 8286 should have been filed in the FSM's MPRJ, the 13
April 2001 form that was located at his residence was properly signed and
witnessed.  OSGLI accepted it as a valid document.  There is no evidence to
show that it was not the latest document prepared by him.

7.  In addition, there is some doubt as to the applicant's relationship to
the FSM at the time of his death.  Although a DD Form 93 signed on 27
February 2002 indicated he was still married, a bar to reenlistment
received on 18 April 2002 indicated he was divorced.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__sac___  __tlp___  __ecp___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.




            __Samuel A. Crumpler__
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040000025                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040525                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |100.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |