RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         16 March 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060000439


      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:

|     |Mr. James G. Gunlicks             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Susan A. Powers               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Richard G. Sayre              |     |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 $440.00 collected from
his pay for Family Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (FSGLI) premiums.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, his spouse and he were dual military
and she retired in June 2005. He claims that when the message was released
for FSGLI they were informed by personnel officials that it did not cover
dual military because they were already covered with SGLI of their own for
$200,000 each.

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of his
application: Military Pay (MILPAY) Message 05-49; Self-Authored Memorandum,
dated
10 August 2005; Military Personnel Office Memorandum, dated 10 August 2005;
Unit Commander Memorandum, dated 10 August 2005; Application for Remission
or Cancellation of Indebtedness (DA Form 3508), dated 25 August 2005;
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) Military Pay Officer,
Fort Bliss, Texas Memorandum, dated 27 September 2005; Pay Adjustment
Authorization (DD Form 139), dated 27 September 2005; Leave and Earnings
Statements (LESs) July-September 2005; and Chief, Special Actions Branch,
Human Resources Command (HRC) Memorandum, dated 11 October 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 sergeant major (SGM).

2.  On the applicant’s July 2005 LES, there was an entry that indicated
that he incurred a debt of $440.00, which was later determined to be an
automatic deduction for FSGLI premiums.

3.  The applicant provides an application for remission of indebtedness,
dated 25 August 2005, in which he requested the FSGLI debt be remitted.  He
included recommendations for approval from his local finance officer,
military personnel office and unit commander.

4.  On 11 October 2005, the Chief, Special Actions, HRC, returned the
applicant's application for remission or cancellation of indebtedness
without action because the DA Form 3508 had not been signed by the
immediate  commander before the debt was collected, which is required by
regulation.


5.  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.

6.  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).

7.  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 that he and his spouse were told that dual
military were not covered by the FSGLI and the supporting documents he
submitted were carefully considered.  However, there is an insufficient
evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief.

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 his 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

___JGG _  __SAP __  __RGS__  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.





                                  _____James G. Gunlicks_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060000439                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/03/16                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.  293  |128.1000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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