RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00615
				INDEX CODE:  100.00

	APPLICANT	COUNSEL:  None

	SSN		HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her records be corrected to reflect she declined Family Servicemember’s Group Life Insurance (FSGLI) coverage; and that she be granted a refund of the premiums that were deducted for the period September 2002 through December 2002.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She changed Reserve status from inactive to active, Category E on 23 September 2002, but she did not receive a notification to update her SGLV 8286 until late November or early December 2002.  She submitted her initial SGLV paperwork in December 2002, in which she elected not to include coverage for her spouse.  She received her bill and was charged for September through December 2002 for spouse coverage.  It is unjust to charge her for coverage she never intended to take.  She further states she was not eligible for coverage previous to September 2002, and the paperwork wasn’t immediately available to her.  She does not live close to her unit to personally in process.  She believes that for new members, especially Reservists not co-located with their units, a minimum period of time should be allowed to decline coverage without requiring payment.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 5 June 2001, Public Law 107-14, Survivor Benefits Improvement Act of 2001, was passed.  The law expanded the SGLI program and was established to provide spouse and or child coverage in the event of their death.  The coverage, by law, was automatic for 
all members of the Armed Forces who had a spouse and or children, unless the member declined coverage.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ ARPC/DPS states the applicant has not submitted any evidence to indicate an injustice occurred.  The applicant was notified of the automatic family coverage and the new law and declination procedures.  The notifications were mailed to the applicant’s home address.  She submitted a SGLV 8286A on 27 December 2002 declining FSGLI coverage.  The declining of coverage becomes effective the first day of the following month the election was declined.  According to Defense Accounting and Finance Services (DFAS), the applicant owes premiums for family coverage from September through December 2002.  They recommend the member’s request be denied.  However, if the Board favorably considers the applicant’s request, the record should be changed to reflect the member  elected  not  to  participate  in  the  FSGLI program on 1 November 2001 and the $52.00 debt be forgiven and all debts purged from her records.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states she was separated from active duty on 26 July 2001 and according to ARPC the letters were mailed in August and October 2001, two months after she was separated.  She does not recall receiving the notifications, if she had she probably dismissed it because she was in the inactive reserves and not eligible for SGLI.  She became eligible to receive SGLI when her status changed in September 2002.  In November 2002, she was notified to update her emergency data card and SGLI; she complied in December 2002.  When the paperwork was completed, her coverage was backdated to September 2002, not July 2001.

She further states this injustice is not related to whether or not she was notified by mail (in 2001) that spousal coverage was an option.  The injustice is that (in 2002, a year later) it took four months for ARPC to accomplish in processing her paperwork due to the fact that she is not co-located with her unit and had to complete all her paperwork via mail; there is no “one-stop” shopping for Individual Mobilization Augmentees (IMAs).  She did not want spousal coverage; she declined coverage the first opportunity the option was presented to her and she should not be 
required to pay for coverage because ARPC didn’t give her the paperwork the first day she was eligible for SGLI.

Applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Applicant’s contention regarding the length of time ARPC took to process her in-processing paperwork is duly noted; however, had the applicant’s spouse became a fatality during the contested time period, the proceeds of the FSGLI coverage would have been paid to her in accordance with the public law.  The applicant has not shown that she did not have adequate time to decline coverage after being initially notified of the new law.  Therefore, in the absence of 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 demonstrates the existence of an error or an 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00615 in Executive Session on 15 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

	            Panel Chair
	            Member
	            Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Feb 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ ARPC/DPS, 7 Mar 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Mar 03.
   Exhibit D.  Applicant’s Response, dated 24 Mar 03.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair