RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00425 INDEX CODE: 137.04 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His record be corrected to show that he elected spouse coverage for his wife under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: When he retired from the Air Force, he was not married and was never informed that he had only a 12-month window to apply for SBP coverage. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his marriage certificate, his spouse’s Identification (ID) Card, and a letter to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS). The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to the Military Personnel Data System, the applicant served in the Regular Air Force with a Pay Date of 8 September 1973. He was promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel (O-5) effective and with a date of rank of 5 December 1992. The applicant was honorably released from active duty effective 31 December 2000 and retired on 1 January 2001. The remaining relevant facts are contained in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIAR recommends denial. DPSIAR states the applicant was not married and declined SBP coverage prior to his 1 January 2001 retirement. He married his wife on 7 July 2007, but failed to submit a valid election within the first year of marriage. On 16 November 2009, DFAS received a letter from the applicant requesting “to have his retirement benefit adjusted to include his wife.” DFAS did not honor his request since it was unclear and it was not within the first year of his marriage. DPSIAR indicates the applicant’s claim he was never informed that he only had 12 months to apply for SBP coverage is without merit. A copy of the SBP Report on Individual Personnel (RIP) located in his records show he signed the certification sheet on 7 December 2000, indicating he was properly briefed on the options and effects of the Plan. Furthermore, the Afterburner, News for USAF Retired Personnel, routinely contains articles to advise retirees of their SBP options when marrying after retirement. Had he submitted an election within the first year of marriage, monthly premiums would have been approximately $265 and SBP costs of about $5,035 would have been deducted from his pay to date. Since he failed to submit a valid election within the first year of marriage, coverage for his wife can only be provided if Congress authorized another open enrollment. It is DPSIAR’s opinion that providing this applicant an additional opportunity to elect SBP coverage would be inequitable to other retirees in similar situations and is not justified by the facts. The complete DPSIAR evaluation is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He would like to make it clear that he is not trying to place fault with anyone or any organization for his situation. He remembered having a retirement briefing many years ago and an extensive checklist was involved. He thinks it is unreasonable to expect anyone to remember seven or eight years after the fact the specifics of having to enroll one’s spouse in SBP within the first year of marriage. As critical as this requirement is, he would have expected the subject to be mentioned during his wife’s out-processing for her ID card. He feels very disappointed that his wife and he are excluded from this benefit. He is willing to pay the sum necessary to bring the fund to a current level so the government does not incur any additional expense. He thinks his 21 years of faithful service to our country warrants a second chance. The applicant’s complete rebuttal is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-00425 in Executive Session on 15 September 2010, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-00425: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Jan 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIAR, dated 26 Feb 10. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Mar 10. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Mar 10. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Panel Chair