PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            15 February 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000044120

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Member	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		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 first enrolled in the RRMIIP in December 1996 before being briefed on the RRMIIP because his fiancee (a secretary for the support group) had given him information on the program and he had requested that forms be sent to him.  When he inquired within his unit about the program there was no one who knew anything about it so he submitted his application before the 31 December 1996 deadline requesting the $3,500 option.  However, his application apparently was lost in the administrative processing.  He goes on to further state that he was briefed on the RRMIIP on 12 July 1997 and enrolled on that date and increased the amount to the $5,000 option; however, for reasons that are unexplained, his enrollment application was lost in the administrative process and he was subsequently denied enrollment despite statements from his commanders that corroborated that the RRMIIP had not been properly and timely briefed.  He further states that he is one of the few people that has not received his RRMIIP payments and contends that he was the one who sought out the information before it became known in the unit, that he was adamant about enrolling because he did not want to experience the financial losses that he experienced during Operation Desert Shield/Storm and that he did not want to wait until it was too late before his unit found out about the program before he enrolled.  He goes on to state that he did in fact increase the amount of his enrollment after he was informed that the unit was deploying and contends that anyone in their right mind would have done so if it was allowed.  While he understands that he may not be entitled to the higher amount, he should be entitled to receive the first amount ($3,500) he elected in December 1996.  Additionally, he states that although he did not receive notification of receipt of his first application, he did not question it because he had heard that the program was bankrupt and presumed that was the reason.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that while serving in the pay grade of   E-8 in a United States Army Reserve (USAR) unit (805th Military Police Company), the applicant received orders which involuntarily ordered him to active duty effective 19 August 1997, in support of Operation Joint Endeavor.  He served involuntarily until 20 April 1998, when he requested to voluntarily remain on active duty for an indefinite period in order to resolve medical problems. 

5.  Meanwhile, on 31 July 1997 the applicant’s company commander submitted a request to have several soldier’s applications for enrollment in the RRMIIP approved because they had not officially declined coverage.  The applicant’s name was among those submitted and his appeal was denied by the Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM) due to a lack of supporting documentation, which included statements and endorsements from the chain of command indicating when the unit was briefed and why the applicant was not briefed.

6.  The applicant appealed the denial of his appeal with the support of his chain of command who indicated that while the necessary information was forwarded to the unit in October 1996, the soldiers were not briefed due to other obligations and that a proper briefing was not given until July 1997.  The ARPERSCOM again denied his appeal because the applicant had stated that he had submitted his original application in December 1996 and yet claimed that he had not been briefed.  It appeared that there were discrepancies in the information submitted and no explanation was provided to account for the discrepancies. 

7.  There are two RRMIIP applications provided by officials at the ARPERSCOM which are present in the available evidence.  The earliest application is dated 27 December 1996 and was authenticated by a member of the applicant’s unit (CW4/unit administrator) for the $3,500 option.  The other application is dated 12 July 1997 and has not been authenticated.  The second application was for the $5,000 option.  Both applications had a note under the amount designated which informed the applicant that once enrolled, the amount could be decreased at any time, but could not be increased.

8.  In the processing of this application a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the ARPERSCOM RRMIIP Manager.  It opined, in effect, that there is conflicting information regarding when the unit was initially briefed, the extent of the initial briefing and no explanation as to why the applicant did not attend the briefing that the reenlistment NCO gave in December 1996.  Officials at the ARPERSCOM recommended denial of the application in whole or at least that he be paid at the $3,500 rate until he requested voluntary retention on active duty.  Accordingly, the opinion was provided to the applicant for rebuttal/comments.

9.  The applicant submitted a rebuttal to the advisory opinion in which he asserted, in effect, that while he did not receive a briefing in December 1996, he did in fact submit an application for enrollment in the RRMIIP that was authenticated by the unit administrator.  Accordingly, had his application been processed properly, he would have been enrolled in the RRMIIP and would have received the benefits to which he was entitled. 

10.  The Board notes that it has previously granted relief in similar cases involving members of the same unit and that all indications are that in fact the unit did not receive a proper RRMIIP briefing until 12 July 1997. 

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 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.  Personnel who elected an option less than the maximum could not at a later date increase their option; however, they had the option at any time to decrease the amount of the coverage.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  While the Board agrees with the ARPERSCOM assertion that there are discrepancies in this case in regards to when the applicant actually received his initial RRMIIP briefing, the chain of command has come on line in support of the applicant’s request in the past and admitted that the RRMIIP was not properly and timely briefed to members of the applicant’s unit.

2. 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 and whether or not he actually submitted an RRMIIP application in a timely manner.  The Board is convinced that the applicant was not properly or timely briefed on the RRMIIP until 12 July 1997; however, it is also convinced that he did in fact submit his RRMIIP application on 27 December 1996 and that it was authenticated by his unit administrator.  Irrespective of whether there was a briefing in December 1996, there is sufficient evidence to show that he did submit an application for enrollment on 27 December 1996 and the Board finds any doubt should be resolved in favor of the soldier since the unit made no attempt to document who was or was not briefed or accounted for the processing of the applications submitted.

3.  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 not been properly or timely briefed and the Board sees no reason to doubt the admissions of their mistakes, because 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 or timely briefed or because his paperwork was lost is not sufficient justification to deny him the opportunity to enroll in the RRMIIP.  To do so would be denying him an opportunity to be afforded the same benefits that other soldiers were afforded.

4.  Therefore, notwithstanding the opinion from the ARPERSCOM, the Board accepts the applicant’s contention that he was not properly enrolled in the RRMIIP effective 27 December 1996 for enrollment under the $3,500 option after he submitted his application and it was properly authenticated.

5.  Accordingly, it would be in the interest of justice to enroll him in the RRMIIP under the $3,500 option effective 27 December 1996, the date he submitted his initial application for enrollment in the RRMIIP after being properly briefed.

6.  The Board also notes that eligibility for enrollment requires involuntary service on active duty and since he voluntarily requested retention on active duty to receive follow-up medical care, his entitlement ceased on 20 April 1998, the date he voluntarily remained on active duty.

7.  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 27 December 1996 under the $3,500 option, as an exception to policy.

2.  That the individual concerned be afforded the opportunity to submit a DFAS-CL Form 1241/3 (RRMIIP Claim for Mobilization Insurance Benefits) and supporting documents for retroactive payment of RRMIIP benefits for the period of 19 August 1997 through 19 April 1998, minus the first 30 days and any premiums he would have paid had he been properly enrolled on 27 December 1996.

BOARD VOTE:  

__mm___  ___mkp__  ___fe___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		____Fred N. Eichorn______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000044120	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/02/15	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  13	101.0000/RRMIIP	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.