MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           25 June 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002069661

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

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Nancy L. Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyi		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That she be reimbursed the family-rate dental care plan premiums she paid from her divorce in June 1999 to February 2001.

APPLICANT STATES:  That she removed her husband from DEERS (Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System) when they divorced in 1999.  The dental care plan premiums should have gone down to the lower one child dependent rate.  It did not.  The carrier, United Concordia, is reimbursing her for the period February 2001 to December 2001.  Supporting evidence is as listed on the DD Form 149.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

She enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 August 1992.  She married on an unknown date.  She enrolled in the military dental care plan on an unknown date for family coverage.  

On 8 June 1999, the applicant divorced.  She apparently updated DEERS at that time to show her new marital/dependent status (from married with one child to single with one child).  From the leave and earnings statements (LESs) provided (most of June 1999 through August 2000 and January 2001), it appears she continued to pay family rate premiums through January 2001.

The applicant’s June 1999 LES, Remarks section notes, “Family Member Dental Plan Premiums Increase in July (Single:  $8.53; Family:  $21.33).”  Her dental plan deduction for this month was $20.00.  Her July 1999 LES, Remarks section notes, “Family Member Dental Plan Premiums Increase in July (Single:  $8.53; Family:  $21.33.).”  Her dental plan deduction for this month was $21.33.  Her LESs for the months August 1999 through June 2000 show her dental plan deductions for those months to be $21.33.  Her May 2000 LES, Remarks section notes, “Family Member Dental Premiums Will Decrease in July 2000:  Single Rate - $7.88; Family Rate - $19.70.”  Her June 2000 LES, Remarks section notes, “Family Member Dental Premiums Will Decrease in July 2000:  Single Rate - $7.88; Family Rate - $19.70.”  Her LESs for the months June and August 2000 show her dental plan deductions for those months to be $19.70.

The applicant was separated on 25 December 2001 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 for parenthood.

Army Regulation 600-8-14 prescribes policies, responsibilities, and procedures for the use and accountability of identification documents, DEERS, and the Real-Time Automated Personnel Identification System (RAPIDS).  It describes DEERS as an automated database system that provides a way of confirming who is eligible for military benefits, such as medical care, commissaries, exchanges, and so forth.  Data on all soldiers, retired and other sponsors, and their eligible family members, is maintained on DEERS.
The Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation, paragraph 410103 states that an allotment system is provided to help military service members adjust their personal and family finances to military service.  It is a convenience and privilege not to be exploited or abused.  Paragraph 410302 states that a discretionary allotment includes payment of premiums for dental and health insurance for the benefit of family.  Paragraph 410801 states that a properly executed Authorization to Start, Stop, or Change an Allotment, DD Form 2558, or a written request from the member or an automated data exchange (from specific organizations) may be used to change an allotment.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

2.  An allotment is a direction from the soldier to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) to pay a certain amount of money to a certain payee on a recurring basis.  DFAS assumes no role as a guarantor of the goods or service obtained in exchange for the allotted payment.  DFAS merely executes the instructions of the soldier.  

3.  The dental program in effect at the time functioned essentially as a contract between the soldier and the service provider.  DFAS provided a convenient mechanism for payment, via an allotment, but did not assume responsibility for the service by the dental provider, nor did DFAS guarantee the soldier’s payment.  

4.  The applicant’s overpayment of dental plan premiums did not result from an error of the Government or its agents.  The applicant formed an agreement with the dental plan provider.  When her circumstances changed, she was entitled to adjust that agreement but she failed to do so.  As it stands, the dental plan provider has received a windfall through an error of the applicant.  Were the Board to “indemnify” the applicant for her loss, both the dental plan provider and the applicant would receive a windfall.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JNS__  __EJA__  __TL___  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002069661	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2002/06/25	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	128.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.