RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-03623
		INDEX CODE:  128.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reimbursed for premiums deducted from his pay for the increased coverage of his Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance (SGLI).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or unjust and the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at Exhibit A.

Supporting documentation was not submitted.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of senior airman (E-4).

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibits B, and E.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPW recommends the application be denied due to lack of sufficient evidence to support the applicant’s claim.  The applicant did not respond to their request for additional information.

The HQ AFPC/DPW evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant’s response to the advisory opinion consists of copies of his leave and earnings statements and a copy of his SGLI election and certificate.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPW recommends the application be denied.  HQ AFPC/DPW stated that the applicant only requested reimbursement of the premiums for 1 Apr through 31 Dec 01; however, since the SGLV Form 8286 was dated 22 Jul 02, he also incurred additional charges for the months of 1 Jan through 31 Jul 02.  It is DPW’s opinion that the Maxwell AFB leadership took adequate steps as directed to inform all members of the increase in coverage and that the applicant had adequate time during the month of Apr 01 to make a new election and avoid the increased premium.  Additionally, the applicant did not provide any documentation to indicate that he was not aware of this change and his responsibility to make a new election or to refuse this benefit.  In accordant with public law, the applicant was automatically covered for $250,000 for the period 1-30 Apr 01.  Since the applicant did not complete a new SGLV Form 8286 declining coverage until 22 Jul 02, he was also covered at the higher amount for the period 1 Apr 02 - 31 Jul 02 and was charged for the increased coverage for 1 Apr 01 - 22 Jul 02.  Had the applicant become a fatality while on active duty between 1 Apr 01 - 22 Jul 02, the proceeds of the $250,000 coverage would have been paid in accordance with 38 U.S.C. 1970.

The HQ AFPC/DPW evaluation is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the additional Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 2 August 2002 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit F).
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.	The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.	The application was timely filed.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the appropriate Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  In view of the above and absent evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.
_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 12 December 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	          

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Dec 01.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPW, dated 10 Apr 02, w/atch.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Apr 02.
   Exhibit D.  Additional evidence from Applicant.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPW, dated 29 Jul 02.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Aug 02.