PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            15 February 2001 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000046034

	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 she was first briefed on the RRMIIP on 12 July 1997 and enrolled on that date for the $5,000 option.  However, because she did not enroll during the initial enrollment period (October to December 1996) her application was denied.  In support of her application she submits a copy of her enrollment application dated 12 July 1997.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that on 19 August 1997, while serving in the pay grade of E-6 in a United States Army Reserve (USAR) unit (805th Military Police Company), the applicant received orders which ordered her to active duty effective 19 August 1997, in support of Operation Joint Endeavor.  She served until she was released from active duty on 17 April 1998 and was returned to her unit.

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 her 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 her appeal with the support of her 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 her appeal because the applicant had failed to provide sufficient information/explanation regarding the failure to enroll during the initial enrollment period. 

7.  The application submitted by the applicant is dated 12 July 1997 and indicates that she elected the $5,000 option. 

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.  Accordingly, the opinion was provided to the applicant for rebuttal/comments.

9.  The applicant submitted a rebuttal to the advisory opinion in which she asserted, in effect, that while she could not explain all of the different points of view as to exactly what happened during the initial briefing that was alleged to have occurred in December 1996, she did not receive such a briefing and the chain of command has confirmed that the unit was not properly briefed/notified on the RRMIIP until July 1997.  Additionally, she was busy preparing the holiday meal for the unit during the drill in question and notes that the reenlistment NCO did not state that he had briefed all personnel, but instead indicated that he had briefed various soldiers.

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.

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 her 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.  The Board is convinced that the applicant was not properly or timely briefed on the RRMIIP until 12 July 1997 and that she did submit an enrollment application at that time.  Irrespective of whether there was a briefing in December 1996, there is no evidence to show, with any degree of certainty that she was in fact briefed in December 1996.  Therefore, any doubt should be resolved in favor of the soldier since the unit made no attempt to document who was or was not briefed.

3.  Her unit commander and battalion commander submitted memorandums to the ARPERSCOM requesting that she 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.

4. The fact that she was not properly or timely briefed or because her paperwork was lost is not sufficient justification to deny her the opportunity to enroll in the RRMIIP.  To do so would be denying her an opportunity to be afforded the same benefits that other soldiers were afforded.

5.  Therefore, notwithstanding the opinion from the ARPERSCOM, the Board accepts the applicant’s contention that she was not properly briefed on the program in December 1996 and that she was briefed on 12 July 1997 and submitted her application for enrollment under the $5,000 option.

6.  Accordingly, it would be in the interest of justice to enroll her in the RRMIIP under the $5,000 option effective 12 July 1997, the date she submitted his initial application for enrollment in the RRMIIP after being properly briefed.

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 12 July 1997 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 19 August 1997 to 17 April 1998, minus the first 30 days and any premiums she would have paid had she been properly enrolled on 12 July 1997.

BOARD VOTE:  

___mm__  __mkp___  __fe____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		____Fred N. Eichorn______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000046034	
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.