RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02974

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be reimbursed for premiums deducted from her pay for Family Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance (SGLI).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When she was in Officer Training School (OTS), she denied SGLI coverage for her spouse.  In July 2003, deduction and STIPEND payments began coming out of her pay even after the original declination of coverage. 

In support of her application, she submits copies of her leave and earning statements (LES).

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the Air Force in the grade of second lieutenant.  

Applicant paid FSGLI premiums from 1 September 2002 to 31 July 2003.  She withdrew from FSGLI on 31 July 2003.  Applicant’s August LES shows a $90 debt.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPW recommended denial and stated the official from the student personnel activity that overseas this program for OTS students at Maxwell AFB has advised them that information about FSGLI coverage is provided during an in processing briefing within five days of the members arriving.  Members are briefed that coverage is automatic and that they must decline the coverage in order for the deductions not to occur.  This official stated that this briefing was in place in September 2002 when applicant claims she was not counseled.  It is their opinion that the Maxwell AFB leadership took adequate steps to inform new members of this program.  In accordance with public law, the applicant’s spouse was insured for $100,000 for the period       1 September 2002 through 31 July 2003.  Had her spouse become a fatality during this period, the proceeds of the $100,000 coverage would have been paid to her IAW 39 U.S.C. 1970.

AFPC/DPW complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit B. 

_________________________________________________________________

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.  The attached SGLV 8286 only gives her, the member, the opportunity to decline.  OTS never advised her as a military to military member, that she would need to (1). Make a decision whether to provide coverage for her spouse, whom she knew had his own SGLI coverage and (2). Acquire a Form SGLV 8285 to decline the coverage.  The first she knew of this decision was after 10 months of service when she began being garnished for $96 of back FSGLI.  Had someone at OTS or even Dyess AFB military personnel flight MPF provided her the information, pertaining to extra coverage for her spouse, she would have declined this coverage.  This would have prevented her from having to fight this battle.  She finds it difficult to understand why, after she has served ten months of service, she find out she is being back charged for something she never requested.  Had this been taken care of in a timely manner through the DFAS system in 2002, she would have known much sooner and not have to suffer $96 taken from her pay.

In support of her response, she provided a copy of SGLV Form 8286.

A complete copy of the applicant’s review 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.	Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, we believe she may have been misled regarding her FSGLI eligibility.  In this respect, we note that although the applicant was automatically enrolled in the FSGLI, premiums were not initially deducted from her pay.  Since her LESs indicated that FSGLI premiums were not being deducted from her pay, we believe it was reasonable for her to believe that she was not enrolled in the FSGLI.  She states that had she seen the FSGLI premiums being deducted from her pay, she would have taken action to decline coverage.  Therefore, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected to the extend indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 30 August 2002, she executed SGLV - 8286A, Family Coverage Election, declining coverage for her spouse, effective 1 September 2002.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2003-02974 in Executive Session on 2 December 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 25 Aug 03, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.	Letter, AFPC/DPW, dated 8 Oct 03.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Oct 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, Applicant’s Response, 24 Oct 03.

	

AFBCMR BC-2003-02974

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 30 August 2002, she executed SGLV - 8286A, Family Coverage Election, declining coverage for her spouse, effective 1 September 2002.