RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03045 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His record be changed to show he elected spouse coverage under 
the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was not advised nor did he understand the benefit. His spouse 
was not provided the opportunity to have the benefit explained to 
her and have the option to concur or non-concur. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant elected child only SBP coverage based on full 
retired pay prior to his 1 January 1993 retirement. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSIAR recommends denial. DPSIAR states finance records 
contain an annotation that his spouse concurred in the 
applicant’s SBP election prior to his retirement. 

 

The applicant’s claim that he was not advised on what the SBP 
would provide for his spouse is without merit. It is the 
applicant’s responsibility to take timely and appropriate action 
to ensure his spouse is properly designated for military 
benefits. He made a valid election for child only coverage with 
his wife’s concurrence. There is no reason to believe that he 
did not receive a copy of the Afterburner, because they were 
mailed to the address where he currently resides. Furthermore, a 
copy of the SBP RIP located in the applicant’s records shows he 
signed the certification sheet on 24 November 1992, indicating he 


was properly briefed on and understood the options and effects of 
the Plan. Media storage and retrival incompatibilities between 
the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) and the Air 
Force Accounting and Finance Center (AFAFC) preclude acquiring a 
copy of his wife’s concurrence statement; nevertheless, the 
record reflects she concurred in his decision. The applicant had 
three opportunities to elect SBP coverage for his wife, but 
failed to do so. SBP is similar to commercial life insurance in 
that an individual must elect to participate during the 
opportunities provided by the law and pay the associated premiums 
in order to have coverage. Approval of this request would 
provide the applicant an additional opportunity to elect SBP 
coverage not afforded other retirees similarly situated and is 
not justified. There is no evidence of error or injustice in 
this case. 

 

The DPSIAR complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 12 November 2010, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit C). As of this date, this office has received no 
response. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 an error or injustice. The 
applicant’s contentions are duly noted; 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. 

 

4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2010-03045 in Executive Session on 23 February 2011, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-03045 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 August 2010, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIAR, dated 6 October 2010, w/atch. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 November 2010. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair