PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:    

	BOARD DATE:            24 February 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999021271

	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.  

	Ms. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Chairperson	
	Mr. James P. Huber		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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, in effect, retroactive enrollment in and compensation from the Ready Reserve Mobilization Income Insurance Program (RRMIIP).

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was misinformed regarding his RRMIIP enrollment eligibility.  He states that he failed to attend either of the two formations when a civilian technician briefed the unit and that he was later briefed by an Army soldier who did not know any of the specifics regarding the RRMIIP and provided incorrect information during the briefing.  He further states that the soldier briefing the program could not answer the question as to whether or not soldiers who were self employed were eligible for RRMIIP enrollment.  He states that it was not until after he deployed and saw a complete copy of the enrollment packet that he learned he was eligible for enrollment in the RRMIIP.  In support of his appeal, he submits a copy of orders dated 18 March 1997 ordering him to active duty effective 27 March 1997, a copy of his RRMIIP enrollment packet dated 22 May 1997, a copy of his RRMIIP appeal to the denial of his enrollment dated 20 August 1997, and a copy of a memorandum from the RRMIIP Program Manager dated 1 December 1998 addressed to the applicant returning his RRMIIP enrollment packet

4.  The applicant’s military records show that on 18 March 1997, orders were published ordering him to active duty effective 27 March 1997 through 21 December 1997.

5.  On 22 May 1997, while assigned to the 257th Transportation Battalion (MC), Taszarmain, Hungary, during Operation Joint Guard, the applicant submitted a DD Form 2746 requesting enrollment in the RRMIIP under the $5,000 option.  In support of his application he submitted statements from his unit commander and his battalion commander recommending that he be allowed to enroll in the RRMIIP because the unit had been misinformed regarding the specifics of the program and its future.  The memorandums further explained that the soldiers lacked the proper information to make an informed decision about participating in the enrollment process for the program.  The commander enclosed a list of the members of the unit that were not properly briefed and the applicant’s name is on the list.  The applicant also submitted copies of statements from other members of his unit that appealed to the Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM).  The statements support the applicant’s contention that the unit was misinformed regarding the specifics of the program.  He also included a statement from the individual who was responsible for briefing the unit regarding the RRMIIP.  The statement indicates that when she spoke with the ARPERSCOM she was never given guidance to give a formal class and that she was told by the ARPERSCOM that a roster was not needed.

6.  On 26 June 1997, the applicant’s RRMIIP application was denied by the ARPERSCOM because the deadline for filing an appeal had expired.

7.  The applicant submitted an appeal to the ARPERSCOM’s decision on 20 August 1997.  Included in his appeal were memorandums from his unit commander and his battalion commander recommending that he be allowed to enroll in the RRMIIP program because the initial guidance received announcing the RRMIIP did not clearly provide information to the service members as to their eligibility.

8.  On 1 December 1998, the ARPERSCOM returned his application without action.  The ARPERSCOM program manager stated that the deadline for the RRMIIP appeal process was 30 June 1998 and that the applicant’s correspondence was dated 10 November 1998.  The ARPERSCOM went on to state that his previous appeal was disapproved and that the email message that he included in this packet admits that two briefings were given in December 1996.  The RRMIIP program manager further stated that the unit commander was responsible for notification and enrollment of the troops and that the commander failed to offer any documentation to support the applicant’s case.

9.  During the processing of this application an advisory opinion was requested from the RRMIIP program manager at the ARPERSCOM.  It opines that the applicant missed the original enrollment period and that the mandatory briefing for the soldiers was left to the unit commanders.  The ARPERSCOM stated that since a copy of the unit briefing was not required, there was no way to verify what information was presented to the soldiers, only that the information was mailed to the units.  The ARPERSCOM further stated that the RRMIIP enrollment information mailed to the units was basic information and not misleading unless something was added to the pamphlet and unit instructions.  Also, an 800 number was established to handle questions regarding the program and was operational by mid October 1996.  The ARPERSCOM recommended that the applicant’s request be denied because the unit briefings were conducted at two different formations by a civilian and one by a military person.  The ARPERSCOM concluded that the RRMIIP information was made available, the briefings were supposed to be mandatory for everyone and if a soldier elected not to attend the briefing, that is the fault of the soldier.   The ARPERSCOM further concluded that the unit’s chain of command verified that the unit had sufficient information to brief the program properly and that the applicant submitted his enrollment packet after he was on active duty.

10.  On 1 June 1999, the applicant submitted a rebuttal to the ARPERSCOM’s advisory opinion.  In the advisory opinion he stated, in effect that he only attended one briefing and that he had no prior knowledge of the briefings allegedly held by the civilian.  He stated that the briefing he attended was not representative of the basic facts; specifically his eligibility and that he did not sign a declination roster.  He further stated that during the briefing that he attended not one person enrolled because the information was false and inaccurate.

11.  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.  The 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 RRMIIP.  Personnel who enlisted in a Troop Program Unit after the initial enrollment period were required to be briefed on the program within 60 days of arrival in the unit and had 60 days after being briefed to enroll or decline.  

CONCLUSIONS:

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

2.  His unit commander and his battalion commander submitted memorandums to the ARPERSCOM requesting that he be allowed the opportunity to enroll in the RRMIIP because the unit had been misinformed regarding the specifics of the program and its future.  The memorandums further explained that the soldiers lacked the proper information to make an informed decision about participating in the enrollment process for the program. 

3.  It was the unit commander’s responsibility to notify the soldiers regarding the RRMIIP briefing and to ensure that informed decisions could be made regarding the program.  The fact that he was not properly briefed or the fact that he mobilized before he obtained the proper information for him to make an informed decision is not sufficient justification to deny him the opportunity to enroll in the RRMIIP or to limit the amount of his enrollment.  To do so would be denying him an opportunity to be afforded the same benefits that other soldiers were afforded.

4.  Therefore, the Board accepts the applicant’s contention that he was not properly  briefed on the program and was unjustly denied a benefit that he otherwise would have been able to receive had he been properly and timely briefed.  Accordingly, it would be in the interest of justice to enroll him in the RRMIIP under the $5,000 option effective 22 May 1997, the date that he submitted his application and, through no fault of his own, was denied.

5.  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 22 May 1997 under the $5,000 option.

2.  That the individual concerned be afforded the opportunity to submit a DFAS-CL From 1241/3 (RRMIIP Claim for Mobilization Insurance Benefits) and supporting documents for retroactive payment of RRMIIP benefits, minus any premiums he would have paid had he been properly enrolled on 22 May 1997.

BOARD VOTE:  

CLA_____  JPH____  MVT____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999021271	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000224	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  13		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.