RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00442
		INDEX CODE: 128.14
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be reimbursed for overpayment of her Servicemember’s Group Life Insurance (SGLI) for the period 1 April 2001 - 1 January 2003 and Family Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (FSGLI) premiums for the period 1 November 2001 - 1 January 2003.  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On or about 22 May 2000 she declined SGLI coverage.  In early 2001, she removed herself from the IMA program and transferred to the non-participating ranks.  On September 11, 2001, her AFSC was impacted by stop-loss and her transfer did not become effective until May 2002.  She did not perform any duties from September 2000 to May 2002.  In late 2002, she applied for reinstatement to the IMA program and her request was granted effective 20 December 2002.  In January 2003, she opened her LES, which she had not done since October 2000 and discovered that since April 2001 she had been charged for SGLI for herself and family and had a debt balance of $555.00.  She never requested reinstatement of coverage and assumed that this was a clerical error that could be easily corrected.  Upon contacting the appropriate office, she was stunned to be told that this change was done by an act of Congress and that she had to decline the coverage and also that this information was never disseminated to Reservists but was probably posted on the base somewhere.  Since she had not been to a base since September 2000, she could not have know about this.  She filed another declination form effective 15 January 2003.  She finds it incredible that anyone, including the government, would take out a life insurance policy on her and her family without her knowledge or consent and then expect her to pay the expense.  This type of action flies in the face of logic and our democratic system.  Imagine if this were put into a commercial context.  No court in the country would allow such an injustice.  No other entity is allowed to send a product to a consumer without that consumer’s consent and then demand payment be rendered.  The whole idea is ludicrous.  She is an adult with a college education and a law degree and doesn’t need anyone, especially the government, to make sure that she has life insurance.  She finds this quite offensive and that it was foisted upon her without her knowledge.  
In support of her appeal, applicant provides copies of her LES for the periods June and July 2000 and January 2003.  Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data extracted from the military personnel data system (MilPDS) reveals that on 20 December 2002, the applicant became a member of the Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) program.  Her Total Federal Service Commission Date is 10 September 1993 and she is currently serving in the grade of captain, with a date of rank and effective date of 31 July 1996. 

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

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPS recommends the application be denied.  DPS states that the applicant was sent a notice concerning the new law during the month of August/October 2001 to her mailing address at:  (HOME ADDRESS).  The letter contained detailed instructions regarding the new policy.  Spouse and/or children coverage was automatic by law for every participating member of the Armed Forces.  HQ ARPC extensively announced the program change.  An article was included in the January/February 2001 issue of the Air Reserve Personnel Update and again in the May/June 2001 issue.  The ARPC website also had information about the change, with instructions regarding what to do if the member wanted to decrease coverage or wished to decline.  

The ARPC/DPS evaluation is attached at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

When she changed to a nonparticipating status, reading magazines and checking websites was not on her current list of activities.  Additionally, she did not receive a letter at her home regarding this matter.  A lack of response should never be grounds for charging for an item, even if it is federal law.  The whole mechanism of instituting coverage that is expected to be paid for without authorization is ludicrous.  Our government should not operate in this manner.  Applicant’s letter is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

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 warranting reimbursement for her Servicemember’s Group Life Insurance (SGLI) and Family Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (FSGLI) premiums deducted from her pay.  The applicant indicates that while in a nonparticipating status, reading magazines and checking websites were not on her priority list; however, we note that the Air Reserve Personnel Center took extensive measures to announce the program changes and it was the applicant’s responsibility to make a new election or to refuse these benefits.  Additionally, we note that the mailing address the Air Reserve Personnel Center used to send her notification of the FSGLI increase is the same address indicated on her BCMR application as:  (HOME ADDRESS).  In view of the foregoing, we believe that Air Force Reserve authorities made every reasonable effort to notify the applicant of the requirements set forth in Public Laws 106-419 and 107-14 and agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that no basis exists to reimburse the premiums withheld.  Therefore, we do not 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 15 April 2003 provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	     Panel Chairman
	     Member
	     Member

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00442:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 February 2003 w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, ARPC/DPS, dated 3 March 2003 w/atchs. 
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 March 2003.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 11 March 2003.

		
		Panel Chair