RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            9 February 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20050016135


      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             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Margaret K. Patterson         |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Mark W. Schaefer              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Roland S. Venable             |     |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, a refund of $455.00 collected from
her pay for Family Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (FSGLI) premiums.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, her husband recently retired from the
Army on 31 August 2005, and upon his retirement, she incurred a stipend
debt of $455.00 for FSGLI.  She claims this is an unjust debt because she
and her husband were both on active duty and therefore did not require
additional insurance.  She states that when this policy became effective in
2001, she was on bed rest, which was followed by convalescent leave, and
officials from the Personnel Services Branch (PSB) informed her she did not
have to worry about it.  She further states that her husband always claimed
the dependents for pay purposes because he was the senior member.  She
indicates that it is her belief that she should not be required to repay
FSGLI for her spouse and children and that Soldiers should be notified by
their local PSB or Finance office about a deduction prior to the collection
being made.

3.  The applicant provides her spouse’s separation document (DD Form 214),
her 30 September 2005 leave and earnings statement (LES), and family
coverage SGLI election (SGLV 8286A) forms in support of her application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s military record shows that at the time of her
application to the Board, she was still serving on active duty, in the rank
of sergeant first class (SFC).

2.  On the applicant’s September 2005 LES, there was an entry that
indicated that she incurred a debt of $455.00, which was later determined
to be an automatic deduction for FSGLI premiums.

3.  The applicant provides two Family Coverage Election (SGLV 8286A) forms
in support of her application.  The first is dated 1 November 2005 and
indicates the applicant elected $100,000 of coverage for her spouse.  The
other contains a partially legible date of 31 August 2003, which appears to
be altered, and indicates she declined coverage for her spouse at that
time.

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.

5.  Guidance published through Army channels upon the implementation of
Public Law 107-14 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).

6.  In similar cases, the DFAS has indicated that the DEERS provides the
collection data and once a spouse is registered in DEERS, the deduction for
FSGLI is made retroactive to 1 November 2001, or the date of marriage
whichever is later if no action to decline FSGLI has been taken.  Further,
that no refunds for FSGLI premiums that are automatically collected is
authorized.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention she was told no declination action was
required for dual military couples and it is unjust to charge her FSGLI
premiums, and the supporting evidence she submitted was carefully
considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support her claim.


2.  The Army implementation guidance for Public Law 107-14 stipulated that
collection of FSGLI premiums was automatic absent a declination from the
Soldier.  Further, the 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 form
(SGLV Form 8286A).

3.  Absent any evidence of record showing the applicant and/or her spouse
complied with the DEERS registration procedures and declination provisions
of the Army’s FSGLI implementation instructions, there is insufficient
evidence to show any error or injustice related to the debt incurred by the
applicant for FSGLI premiums.  The 31 August 2003 SGLV Form 8286A provided
by the applicant is not sufficiently convincing to support a conclusion
that she, or her spouse, complied with the DEERS registration procedures,
or fully complied with the FSGLI declination provisions in a timely manner.


4.  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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___MKP _  __MWS _  ___RSV_  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.




            ____Margaret K. Patterson ___
                    CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050016135                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/02/09                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A                                     |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A                                     |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |N/A                                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |N/A                                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.  293  |128.1000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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