PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            15 February 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000045686

	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 was improperly briefed on the RRMIIP in December 1996 and was informed that the insurance program did not apply to the members who attended the drill because they would make more money on active duty than they made in the civilian sector.  He goes on to state that other questions were asked that were subsequently discovered to be incorrect and that no one was ever provided any written information regarding the program.  He continues by stating that it was not until after the unit was deployed that it was discovered that the members were in fact eligible to enroll in the program.  However, by the time it was discovered, it was too late and their applications were denied.  He also states that had the members been properly briefed and allowed to enroll, many of the hardships endured by members of his unit would have been relieved.  In support of his application he submits statements from his commanders indicating that the unit was in fact improperly briefed. 

4.  The applicant’s military records show that on 18 March 1997, while serving in the pay grade of E-6 in a United States Army Reserve (USAR) unit in Gainesville, Florida (257th Transportation Company), he was ordered to active duty in support of Operation Joint Endeavor/Guard effective 27 March 1997.

5.  On 19 May 1997, while in Hungary, the applicant submitted a request for enrollment in the RRMIIP ($5,000 option) and included 15 other individuals along with his own name, requesting enrollment based on being improperly briefed.  He subsequently completed an RRMIIP enrollment application dated 23 May 1997 and his request was forwarded through the chain of command to the Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM) along with a statement from his commander verifying that the members had been improperly briefed on the RRMIIP.

6.  He was released from active duty on 27 November 1997 and was returned to his USAR unit in Florida.

7.  On 6 July 1998 the ARPERSCOM denied the applicant’s request based on his failure to enroll within 60 days of being briefed on the program.

8.  In the processing of this case a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the RRMIIP manager at the ARPERSCOM which opined that in light of the company and battalion commander’s verification that the applicant had been improperly briefed, as well as previous favorable decisions by the Board regarding members of the applicant’s unit, that the applicant should be enrolled in the RRMIIP.  The opinion was provided to the applicant for comment and he concurred with the recommendation. 
9.  A review of the statements provided by the applicant’s company and battalion commanders corroborate the applicant’s contentions that he was improperly briefed on his eligibility for the RRMIIP. 

10.  The Board notes that it has previously granted relief in similar cases involving members of the same unit based on the same circumstances. 

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.

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 in December 1996. 
5.  While the Board cannot determine with any degree of certainty, exactly what day in December he attended the briefing, it would be in the interest of justice to enroll him in the RRMIIP under the $5,000 option effective 1 December 1996, the month he would have enrolled in the RRMIIP had he been properly briefed.

6.  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 1 December 1996 under the $5,000 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 27 March to 27 November 1997, minus the first 30 days and any premiums he would have paid had he been properly enrolled on 1 December 1996.

BOARD VOTE:  

___mm __  __mkp __  __fe ____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		____Fred N. Eichorn______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000045686	
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.