DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
DIC
Docket No. 10034-08
24 Nov 09
Dear
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 23 November 2009. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted
of your application, together with all material submitted in
support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes,
regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the
advisory opinion furnished by HOMC Memo 1700 MRPC dtd 6 Nov 09,
a copy of which was previously furnished to you and is attached.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice,
The records in your case show that your participation in the
Family Servicemember’s Group Life Insurance (FSGLI) stopped in
approximately January 2002.' No FSGLI premiums were collected
after Ene date. Records also show that your previous spouse,
iene, died in 2005. You now allege, essentially,
(a) that you “do not remember declining” FSGLI coverage, (b)
that your participation in FSGLI was stopped in error and (c)
you should therefore be entitled to FSGLI benefits based on iaeippgp
a ; ate. death.
The Board noted that over 7 years elapsed between the time your
. participation in FSGLI stopped and the time you submitted an
s ppt ication to this Board. Under the rules governing this
. The. “normal procedure in effect for stopping FSGLI was for the service member’
geet to file a SGLV 8286A Family Coverage Election Form.
Board, an application for a correction of a naval record must be
made within three years after the discovery of the alleged
error. This limitation is generally based on the common law
legal doctrine that a right or claim will not be allowed if a
delay in asserting the right or claim has prejudiced another
party. With the passage of time, memories fade and key
personnel and documents become more difficult to find. In your
case, the neglect in asserting your claim has caused a
disadvantage to the Naval Service in assessing your claim.
Among other things, there is no way now to produce any SGLV
8286A filed in late 2001 or early 2002 to show the precise
document upon which the FSGLI was stopped. Moreover, there is
no efficient method of identifying and interviewing all of the
key personnel who were involved in the matter in 2002. The
Board finds that because the lapse of time has prejudiced the
Naval service in these respects, it is not in the interests of
justice to excuse the delay.
Also, under the rules governing this Board, there is a
presumption that the records are correct and, thus, there is a
presumption that the action taken by the Marine Corps to stop
your participation in FSGLI in 2002 was correct. The burden is
on you to overcome that presumption. The Board determined that
your tardy claim that you “do not remember declining” FSGLI was
insufficient to overcome the presumption. This is especially
true in light of the information contained in the advisory
opinion from—=agi nee Seite to the effect that he “would not
have stopped FSGLI coverage without a request” from you.
Additionally, the Board noted that you did not pay any of the
“costs” or “premiums” associated with participation in FSGLI
after early 2002. FSGLI costs are reflected on a member’s
monthly Leave and Earnings Statements (LES). Your LES’s showed
no FSGLI “cost” deductions after early 2002. You had ample
opportunity to be aware that you were not participating in
FSGLI. There is no evidence that between early 2002 and early
2005 (when iF i ed) that you took any steps to restart FSGLI
by re-enrolling in FSGLI and paying the associated costs. In
other words, even after the FSGLI was stopped, you had ample
opportunity to “restart” FSGLI but did not do so. Under these
circumstances, the Board found no error or injustice in the
determination that you were not participating in FSGLI when Qi...
died and that you should not be entitled to FSGLI benefits.
Based on these factors, your application has been denied. The
names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished
upon request.
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such
that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have
the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and
material evidence or other matter not previously considered by
the Board. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that
a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.
Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official
naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the
existence of probable material error or injustice.
Sincerely, ~
WDNak
W. DEAN PFE
Executive D r
Enclosure
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003177
The remarks block of the LES shows, in part: * she had an FSGLI debt balance of $792.00 * she had spouse SGLI coverage in the amount of $100,000.00 c. An SGLV Form 8286A signed by the applicant on 1 April 2008 also shows she declined FSGLI coverage for her spouse. The letter stated the debt was transferred to DFAS by her former National Guard unit, and DFAS was unable to reduce or cancel the debt until she provided a letter from her unit stating the debt was not her fault or an SGLI Form...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00106
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00106 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reimbursed for Family Servicemember’s Group Life Insurance (FSGLI) premiums he paid for the period of 1 August 2002 through 31 January 2003. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPW...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00127
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00127 INDEX CODE: 128.14 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His record be changed to show he declined Family Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (FSGLI) coverage, and he be reimbursed for the premiums deducted from his pay in January, February, March, April, May and June 2002. Since the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050014501C070206
The applicant also provides a SGLV Form 8286A that shows he declined FSGLI coverage. 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. The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050016135
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, 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03144
The law mandated that coverage for spouses [to include military-married- to-military couples (mil-mil couples)] and dependent children automatically go into effect on the date of implementation so long as the member was insured under the SGLI program, unless the member declined the coverage in writing. The Leave and Earnings Statements provided by the applicant reflect that no premiums were deducted for FSGLI coverage until August 2004. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Nov 04.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01073
DPFC explains the law mandated that coverage for spouses (to include military-married-to- military couples (mil-to-mil)) and dependent children automatically go into effect on the date of implementation so long as the member was insured under the SGLI program. She notes the article does not specifically mention mil-to-mil, or that your active duty spouse is considered your dependent for this program, or that if an election is not made payments would automatically be deducted from your pay. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-03710
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03710 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reimbursed for the Family Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (FSGLI) premiums deducted from his pay. He states that had he seen the FSGLI premiums being deducted from his pay, he would have taken action to decline coverage. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02974
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and stated despite what the OTS personnel stated she had provided the Board with only information she was given regarding the SGLI program. She states that had she seen the FSGLI premiums being deducted from her pay, she would have taken action to decline coverage. _________________________________________________________________ THE...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03862
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In January 2002, she went to the Customer Service Section at the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) in Keflavik, Iceland, to decline the spousal portion of the new FSGLI coverage. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant explained that she did not respond to AFPC/DPW’s request for additional documentation because there was...