RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00134
		INDEX CODE:  128.14

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be reimbursed for the amount of Family Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (FSGLI) deducted from her pay.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Beginning in November 2001 through October 2003 she was charged for Family Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (FSGLI) for her husband who was serving on active duty in the United States Army.  She indicates the deductions were in four payments of $68.00 beginning on 15 November 2003.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of staff sergeant effective and with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 March 2003.

On 5 June 2001, the President signed into law approving Public Law 107-14, which was the enabling legislation for the FSGLI program.  FSGLI, which was implemented Department of Defense (DOD) wide on 1 November 2001, made it possible for servicemembers to take out low cost insurance on their spouse for up to $100,000 (premium charged) and $10,000 life insurance for dependent children (no cost) through the Office of Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance.  The law mandated that coverage for spouses (to include military married to military couples) and dependent children automatically go into effect on the date of implementation so long as the member was insured under the Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (SGLI) program.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPW recommended denial.  They indicated Air Force leadership took adequate steps to inform all members of this new program and the applicant had adequate time to make an election decision.  In accordance with public law, although premiums had not yet been deducted from her pay, the applicant’s spouse was insured for $100,000 for the period 1 November 2001 to present.  Had the applicant’s spouse become a fatality during this period, the proceeds of the $100,000 coverage would have been paid to her in accordance with 38 U.S.C. 1970.  To date, the applicant has not declined FSGLI coverage in writing, but she was notified by their office by telephone on 2 February 2004 of her responsibility to do so to prevent future premium deductions.  

The evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 20 February 2004, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or an 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.  The Board is persuaded the applicant had adequate time between 1 November and 31 December 2001 to make an election decision.  She did not provide any documentation to indicate that she was not aware of this change.  The applicant indicates she was on maternity leave in November 2001 and no one in her squadron was briefed regarding the FSGLI.  Other than her own assertions, she presents insufficient evidence to support her assertion.  It appears that while the applicant was stationed at a GSU, the information regarding the new program was sent to the applicant’s unit and was well publicized at Fort Hood, where the applicant was stationed.  In addition, information regarding the program was included on Leave and Earning Statements commencing in August 2001.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant has not established to our satisfaction that she was unaware of the new program and her responsibility to decline coverage if she did not want her spouse covered   We note to date, the applicant has still not declined FSGLI coverage in writing, even though she was notified by HQ AFPC/DPW by telephone on 2 February 2004, of her responsibility to do so to prevent future premium deductions.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate 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-2004-00134 in Executive Session on 20 April 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 January 2004, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPW, dated 13 February 2004, w/atchs.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 February 2004.

				Panel Chair