PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            23 June 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1998012401

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Ms. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Gary F. Geraets		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
            records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests retroactive enrollment in and compensation from the Ready Reserve Mobilization Income Insurance Program (RRMIIP).

3.  The applicant states that the decision made by the National Guard Bureau (NGB), to deny her appeal was in error and unjust.  In support of her appeal to this Board, she submits a Memorandum for the Army Reserve Personnel Center (ARPERCEN) dated 5 November 1998, indexing her supporting documents (See Attached).

4.  The applicant’s military records are incomplete.  Information herein was obtained from the documentation submitted with her application.

5.  On 14 August 1997, the applicant’s commander submitted a memorandum to the Army National Guard Readiness Center requesting that she be allowed to enroll in the RRMIIP.  In the memorandum the commander stated that the reason her application was never received at the center was because she was not assigned to the 111th Area Support Group of the Texas Army National Guard (TXANG) until 29 June 1997 and that his unit had been briefed 6 months prior to her arrival.  Along with his memorandum, the commander enclosed a copy of the applicant’s RRMIIP application (DD Form 2746).

6.  On 30 January 1998, the applicant was notified by the National Guard Bureau (NGB) that her DD Form 2746 had been denied.  The letter indicated that the HHC, 363D Corps Support Group, the USAR unit to which she was assigned at that time, was notified regarding the RRMIIP on 17 September 1996.  The letter further indicated that there was no evidence of intent that she requested to elect RRMIIP at the time it was offered and that her offer to enroll expired on 1 March 1997.  She was informed that an election to decline insurance is irrevocable (incapable of being retracted or revoked) and that there is no authority for the NGB to permit her to participate in the RRMIIP once she declined or rejected the program when it was offered by the USAR.  

7.  On 16 June 1998, the applicant was notified by memorandum that the NGB would be closing incomplete RRMIIP cases and come to a decision on completed RRMIIP cases.  The memorandum also indicated that no new cases would be accepted effective 30 June 1998.

8.  Although not a part of the available record, the applicant submitted an appeal to the NGB’s decision to deny her RRMIIP application.  Along with her appeal, she submitted a Memorandum for Record from the HHC, 363D Corps Support Group dated 28 July 1998, explaining that she had not received the RRMIIP briefing.  The memorandum was signed by someone other than her commander.

9.  On 2 September 1998, the Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM) notified the Army National Guard Readiness Center that the applicant’s appeal was denied.  The cited reasons for the denial was that if a soldiers states that they were not briefed during the initial enrollment period, it was required that an appeal be completed by the soldier through the unit of assignment during that time and submitted through the chain of command.  The notification also indicated that the unit commander was required to explain when the unit was briefed, if the soldier was not briefed during the unit notification , why was the soldier not briefed, and lastly, what attempt did the commander make to brief the soldier, if absent from the unit notification.  The ARPERSCOM concluded that there was nothing in the memorandum from the HHC,363d Corps Support Group to substantiate her case and that the unit memorandum was not even signed by the unit commander.

10.  Along with her appeal to this Board, the applicant submitted a memorandum dated 14 September 1998, signed by her former commander.  In the memorandum her former commander stated that for the period covering October 1996 through March 1997, he was the commander of the HHC, 363D Corps Support Group and that the unit was not briefed regarding the RRMIIP.  He further stated that the unit was not briefed because he had no knowledge about the program.

11.  On 22 September 1998 the NGB denied her appeal for the RRMIIP benefits. The reason cited for the denial was that the application deadline for the NGB to accept RRMIIP appeals terminated on 30 June 1998 and that her information was not received until after the termination date.  She was told to apply to this Board if she desired to pursue her issue.

12.  The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, dated 10 February 1996, authorized the RRMIIP with an initial start date of 1 October 1996.  RRMIIP was designed to provide income insurance for most Reserve Component members who were involuntarily ordered to active duty in support of military operations for over 30 days.  The initial enrollment period for active members of the Reserve components (USAR and National Guard) was 1 October 1996 through 31 December 1996.  Personnel who failed to enroll within 60 days after being briefed were considered to have declined.  Personnel on active duty were not eligible to apply for enrollment in the RRMIPP.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The issues in this case is whether or not the applicant was properly briefed on the RRMIPP and was it accomplished within the prescribed timeframe.  The Board is convinced that the applicant was not properly briefed on the RRMIPP.

2.  The former commander of the HHC 363 Corps Support Group stated that no members of his unit received a briefing because he had no knowledge of the program.  Furthermore, she was not briefed by the TXANG because she was not assigned to the Area Support Group until 6 months after the briefing had been given.

3.  Therefore, the Board accepts the applicant’s contention that she was not briefed on the program and was unjustly denied a benefit that she otherwise would have been able to receive had she been properly and timely briefed.  Accordingly, it would be in the interest of justice to enroll the applicant in the RRMIPP effective 14 August 1997, the date that she submitted her application and, through no fault of her own, was denied. 

4.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was enrolled in the RRMIIP effective 14 August 1997 under the $5,000 option.

2.  That the individual concerned be afforded the opportunity to submit a DFAS-CL Form 1241/3 (RRMIPP Claim for Mobilization Insurance Benefits) and supporting documents for retroactive payment of RRMIIP benefits, minus any premiums she would have paid had she been properly enrolled on 14 August 1997.

BOARD VOTE:  

___le____  __mkp __  __gg____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		__Margaret K. Patterson___
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1998012401	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1999/06/23	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  13	101.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.