RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            10 November 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20050014501


      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             |
|     |Ms. Lisa O. Guion                 |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Margaret K. Patterson         |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Linda D. Simmons              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Michael J. Flynn              |     |Member               |

      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, in effect, repayment of $288.00 collected from
his pay for payment of Family Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (FSGLI)
premiums for the months of November 2001 through September 2005.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that although he does not have a copy
of the original declination statement, he declined FSGLI coverage when it
was initially offered.  He states that both he and his wife were dual
military members receiving SGLI and that they had no children.  He
indicates that when his wife medically retired from active duty in January
2005, he was suddenly assessed a fee of $288.00 to pay for FSGLI
retroactive from November 2001 through September 2005.  He also states that
the fact that no premiums were assessed from his pay from November 2001
through the time of his wife's release from active duty (REFRAD) in January
2005 is evidence that he originally declined FSGLI.  The applicant further
states that he has taken steps to correct this error on his own to include
filing a complaint with the Inspector General's office.  However, he was
told to apply to this Board for relief in his case.

3.  In support of his application, the applicant provides the following
documents: Office of the Inspector General, Fort Sam Houston, Texas Letter,
dated 15 June 2005; Spouse Separation Document (DD Form 214);  Leave and
Earnings Statement (LES), April 2005; and Family Coverage Election (SGLV
Form 8286A), dated 2 May 2005.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1. The applicant’s military record shows that at the time of his
application to the Board, he was still serving on active duty, in the rank
of staff sergeant (SSG).

2.  The applicant provides a letter from the Assistant Inspector General,
Fort Sam Houston, Texas, dated 15 June 2005.  This letter responded to the
applicant’s complaint regarding the FSGLI deductions in question.  The
Assistant IG stated that FGSLI for dual military members was automatic and
that if a Soldier is insured under SGLI, by law their spouse is
automatically insured under FSGLI unless the Soldier declined coverage for
their spouse by submitting an
SGLV Form 8286A.  He further indicated that there was no record of the
applicant submitting this form and the applicant failed to provide an SGLI
Form 8286A confirming he declined FGSLI.  The applicant was advised to
apply to this Board if he still believed an error or injustice existed in
his case.

3.  The applicant also provides a SGLV Form 8286A that shows he declined
FSGLI coverage.  The "For Official Use Only" portion of this form shows
that it was authenticated with the applicant’s signature and properly
signed by a witness on 2 May 2005.

4.  Public Law 107-14, effective November 1, 2001, established FSGLI
coverage for members of the uniformed services who were eligible for SGLI
coverage. This law allowed for elected SGLI insurance coverage of the
member's spouse for up to $100,000, in $10,000 increments, and automatic
coverage of the member's dependent children for $10,000 for the time that
they have full-time SGLI coverage.  Guidance published upon implementation
of the law specified that in the case of married couples on active duty,
premiums would be automatically deducted from each spouse’s pay for
coverage of his or her spouse.  It further stipulated that each member must
register the other as their spouse in the Defense Enrollment Eligibility
Reporting System (DEERS).  Finally, it was stipulated that if one or both
members declined or reduced coverage for his or her spouse, they must
complete a form (SGLV Form 8286A).

5.  The Family SGLI Coverage Procedural Guide, Part II-Ending Spousal
Coverage, states, in pertinent part, that a service member must complete a
SGLV Form 8286A in order to decline FSGLI coverage and that the declination
would take effect on the date the form is received by the service member's
unit.  Coverage may be declined prior to automatic issue or after coverage
has been in effect.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s claim that he declined FSGLI coverage for his spouse
when it was offered and that it is unjust to charge him FSGLI premiums for
the period November 2001 through September 2005 was carefully considered.
However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim, or to refund
the FSGLI premiums assessed prior to 2 May 2005.

2.  As indicated by the Fort Sam Houston Inspector General in his letter to
the applicant, the collection of FSGLI premiums was automatic absent a
declination from the Soldier.  Further, the Army’s implementation
instructions for the FSGLI program clearly stipulated that in the case of
married couples on active duty, premiums would be automatically deducted
from each spouse’s pay for coverage of his or her spouse.  These
instructions further specified that each member must register the other as
their spouse in the DEERS and if one or both declined or elected reduced
coverage, they must complete a SGLV Form 8286A.

3.  There is no evidence of record and the applicant has failed to provide
a completed SGLV Form 8286A showing he declined FSGLI coverage between
November 2001 and 1 May 2005.  Absent any evidence corroborating his claim
that he originally declined FSGLI coverage, the burden of proof necessary
to support granting the requested relief has not been satisfied in this
case.  He has provided a properly completed SGLV Form 8286A, dated 2 May
2005, in which he declines FSGLI coverage.  Therefore, in accordance with
the FSGLI procedural guide, his record should be corrected to show he
declined FSGLI coverage, effective 2 May 2005, and he should be reimbursed
any premiums collected since that date.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

___MKP _  __LDS__  ___MJF_  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to
warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board
recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual
concerned be corrected to show he declined FSGLI coverage effective 2 May
2005; and by reimbursing him any FSGLI premiums he paid since 2 May 2005.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is
insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result,
the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to
reimbursing the applicant the FSGLI premiums paid from November 2001
through 1 May 2005.




            ____Margaret K. Patterson__
                    CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050014501                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |NO                                      |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/11/10                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |ACTIVE DUTY                             |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |NA                                      |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |NA                                      |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |NA                                      |
|BOARD DECISION          |PARTIAL                                 |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schneider                           |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]