IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  25 October 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120006265 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

The applicant, the mother of a deceased former service member (FSM), defers her request, statement, and evidence to her Counsel.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests correction of the FSM's record to show he elected Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI) in the amount of $400,000.00 and that the applicant be paid the full amount of her deceased son's SGLI.

2.  Counsel states:

	a.  Although the FSM had previously elected reduced SGLI coverage in the amount of $50,000.00, he resubmitted an SGLV-8286 (SGLI Election and Certificate) form on 16 August 2010, wherein he elected coverage in the full amount of $400,000.00.  At the time of his death, the Army erroneously issued an SGLI payout of $50,000.00 to the applicant, the SGLI beneficiary, when the overwhelming evidence and principles of fairness and equity dictate she was entitled to payment of $400,000.00.  Her son served honorably in the U.S. Army from August 2009 until his untimely death on 29 March 2011.  His death was classified as a non-hostile illness as a result of cerebral infarction.

	b.  On 20 November 2009, while in airborne training, the FSM completed an SGLV-8286 and indicated he wanted a reduced amount of coverage.  He did this by completing the "Amount of insurance" section of this form to indicate he was requesting a reduced amount of coverage in the amount of $50,000.00.
	c.  After completion of his training, he was stationed at Fort Bragg, NC, where he received notice he would soon be deployed to Afghanistan.  After being informed of this, on 16 August 2010 he completed an SGLV-8286, wherein he left the middle section of the form blank.  The instructions on the form state "By law, you are automatically insured for $400,000.00.  If you want $400,000.00 of insurance, skip to Beneficiary(ies) and Payment Options.  If you want less than $400,000.00 of insurance, please check the appropriate block below and write the amount desired and your initials."  The FSM skipped to the beneficiary and payment option of this form, did not check the block to indicate he wanted a reduced amount of coverage, and did not write in a reduced amount of coverage.

	d.  Following her son's death, the applicant received an SGLI payment of $50,000.00.  Knowing her son increased his coverage to $400,000.00, the applicant appealed the amount of SGLI she was paid through her Member of Congress.  She was notified her congressman's office had received a statement stating she was appropriately paid $50,000.00 and cited a sworn statement by the unit clerk who processed the FSM's SGLV-8286 on 16 August 2010.  Eight months after processing the form, the unit clerk submitted a sworn statement wherein she claimed she precisely recalled informing the FSM that his SGLI coverage was for only $50,000.00.  In the sworn statement, she also claimed that he replied he knew that and he did not want to change the amount "because it all goes to child support."  When the clerk was asked why she did not have him complete the middle section of the form, she replied she "was unaware the middle section had to be filed out."

	e.  The Army provides no concrete evidence that the FSM failed to correctly update his SGLV-8286 to reflect his desire for full SGLI coverage of $400,000.00.  Colonel (COL) RT, Director of the Casualty and Mortuary Affairs Operations Center, stated in a letter to the applicant, dated 13 June 2011, that she was paid the correct SGLI amount of $50,000.00.  To support this claim, COL RT stated that the FSM continued to pay $4.25 a month for SGLI coverage that was consistent with coverage in the amount of $50,000.00; the unit clerk submitted in a sworn statement that the FSM requested the reduced amount; and the eMILPO (electronic Military Personnel Office) database accurately reflected the unit clerk's testimony by showing the FSM selected $50,000.00 of SGLI coverage.  COL RT's statement not only supports the claim that this was a clerical and administrative error but it also attempts to place blame on the FSM for failing to take the appropriate steps required to effectively change his SGLI coverage.

	f.  Contrary to COL RT's suggestion, it is not a service member's obligation to identify whether or not the SGLI premium withheld from her/his pay is the correct 


amount for the amount of coverage selected.  The unit clerk's sworn statement, dated 6 April 2011, lacks credibility and conflicts with the evidence.  It is inconceivable that a unit clerk, who processes hundreds or even thousands of individuals for their SGLI every year, has the capacity to vividly remember the circumstantial details of an unremarkable commonplace interaction with a single individual that took place 232 days prior.  In addition, it is a manifest injustice that the FSM's family would have to suffer significant financial loss because a unit clerk "was unaware that the middle section of the SGLV-8286 had to be filled out."  The fact that the eMILPO database reflected the FSM elected $50,000.00 of SGLI coverage holds no weight.  Obviously, the database contains the data entered by the unit clerk who committed clear clerical and administrative errors.

	g.  Title 38, U.S. Code, section 1970 states, "Any amount of insurance under this subchapter in force on any member or former member on the date of the insured's death shall be paid, upon establishment of a valid claim therefore, to the person or persons surviving at the date of the insured's death, in the following order of precedence:  First, to the beneficiary or beneficiaries as the member or former member may have designated by a writing received prior to death (1) in the uniformed services if insured under SGLI…."  Therefore, any SGLV Form 8286 completed and submitted by an active duty service member serves as a written contract between the Office of Service Members' Group Life Insurance (OSGLI) and an individual service member.  Therefore, the applicant should receive the SGLI payment of $400,000.00.

3.  Counsel provides:

* DD Form 1300 (Report of Casualty)
* two SGLV-8286 forms
* a memorandum from COL RT, dated 6 June 2011, to the applicant's congressman
* a memorandum from COL RT, dated 13 June 2011, to the applicant
* DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement), dated 6 April 2011

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The FSM's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 19 August 2009 in the rank/grade of private (PV2)/E-2 and he held military occupational specialty 25R (Visual Information Equipment Operator/Maintainer).

2.  On 20 November 2009, he completed an SGLV-8286.  This form stated, "Amount of Insurance - By law, you are automatically insured for $400,000.00.  If 


you want $400,000.00 of insurance, skip to Beneficiary(ies) and Payment Options.  If you want less than $400,000.00 of insurance, please check the appropriate block below and write the amount desired and your initials.  Coverage is available in increments of $50,000.00.  If you do not want any insurance, check the appropriate block below and write (in your own handwriting), "I do not want insurance at this time."  This form also states, *Note:  Reduced or refused insurance can only be restored by completing form SGLV-8285 (Request for Insurance (SGLI)) with proof of good health and compliance with other requirements.  Reduced or refused insurance will also affect the amount of VGLI (Veterans Group Life Insurance) you can convert to upon separation from service."

3.  The FSM checked the appropriate block of this form to show he was electing reduced SGLI coverage, filled in the amount of $50,000.00, and placed his initials in the appropriate block to verify he was electing reduced coverage in the amount of $50,000.00.  He authenticated this form by placing his signature in the appropriate block.

4.  On 1 April 2010, he was promoted to the rank/grade of private first class (PFC)/E-3. 

5.  On 11 August 2010, he was assigned to the 4th Psychological Operations Group [later redesignated as the 4th Military Information Support Group], Fort Bragg.

6.  On 16 August 2010, as part of routine in-processing, he completed an
SGLV-8286.  He did not check the appropriate block of this form to indicate he was electing reduced SGLI coverage, did not fill in a reduced amount of coverage, nor did he initial the appropriate block to verify he was electing reduced coverage.  He authenticated this form by placing his signature in the appropriate block.  The unit clerk who in-processed the FSM and assisted him in completing this form also authenticated this form by placing her signature in the "Witnessed and Received by" block of this form.  He did not complete an
SGLV-8285 form or provide proof of good health as required to potentially increase his previously-elected reduced SGLI coverage.

7.  On 20 August 2010, he was further assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 4th Psychological Operations Group [later redesignated as the 3rd Military Information Support Battalion], Fort Bragg.

8.  On 29 March 2011, the FSM died of a non-hostile illness at Chapel Hill, NC.  He was posthumously promoted to the rank/grade of specialist (SPC)/E-4.


9.  His record contains a memorandum to the OSGLI, dated 6 April 2011, from Major (MAJ) JES, Commander, 3rd Military Information Support Battalion.  MAJ JES stated:

	a.  Due to administrative error, it is impossible for me to determine with absolute certainty the SGLI coverage level the FSM wanted on the day he completed his most recent SGLV-8286, 16 August 2010.  Request your office give consideration to the ambiguity of the overall circumstances and to the facts contained in this memorandum.  On the SGLV-8286 from 16 August 2010, the FSM left the center portion of the form blank that would seem to indicate he was electing to increase his coverage to $400,000.  However, the battalion's personnel section never processed a SGLV Form 8285 and he continued to pay the premium for $50,000.00 of SGLI.

	b.  The battalion discovered this discrepancy following the FSM's death.  The administrative clerk who in-processed the FSM stated he told her he wanted to maintain the $50,000.00 SGLI coverage amount.  She stated she failed to have him properly complete the SGLV-8286 to accurately reflect this decision.

	c.  During a telephone conversation between the battalion commander, Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) RC, and the applicant on 4 April 2011, she told LTC RC that her son telephoned her in late 2010 and expressed he had increased his SGLI coverage to $400,000.00.

10.  In a sworn statement, dated 6 April 2011, the unit clerk who in-processed the FSM on 16 August 2010 stated when it came time to update his SGLI, she informed him the eMILPO database showed he was only covered for $50,000.00 and she asked him if he wanted to increase his coverage to $400,000.00.  He told her he did not want to change the amount of his coverage as "it all goes to child support."  She also stated she did not have him complete the center portion of the SGLV-8286 to indicate he wanted to maintain only $50,000.00 in SGLI coverage because "at the time she was unaware that the middle section had to be filled out."

11.  The applicant subsequently received $50,000.00 in SGLI based on the death of her son.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record confirms that the only properly-completed SGLI form in the FSM's record is the 20 November 2009 SGLV-8286 form wherein he elected reduced SGLI coverage of $50,000.00.


2.  While the 16 August 2010 SGLV-8286 form appears to constitute an election of increased coverage, that election, even if reflective of the FSM's intent, is insufficient in itself to increase the SGLI coverage amount.  An increase in coverage required completion of SGLV-8285, proof of good health, and it was subject to the approval of the OSGLI as was noted on the SGLV-8286.  In addition, the unit clerk who processed the FSM's SGLV-8286 contends he told her he wanted to maintain, not increase, his reduced coverage.

3.  Although it is regrettable that the 16 August 2010 SGLV-8286 was not properly completed, the weight of the evidence supports the contention that the FSM initially elected and subsequently maintained an SGLI election of reduced coverage in the amount of $50,000.00.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____x___  ____x___  ____x___  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.



      ___________x____________
       	   CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120006265



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120006265



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1