RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05727 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect he elected the child-only Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) option for his disabled son. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: At the time of retirement, he did not understand his child, who is permanently disabled, was eligible for SBP coverage for the remainder of his life. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFFF recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. Retiring members are provided in-depth information about the options and effects of the SBP prior to retiring. In this case, the SBP counselor at the applicant’s final duty station thoroughly briefed the applicant and his wife of the features of the plan. Following the briefing, the member signed the SBP Report-Individual Person (SBP-RIP) and a copy of the RIP was provided to the applicant. Item F.1. of the SBP-RIP clearly and specifically states that a child incapable of self-support remains eligible for life or as long as the disability causes them to be incapable of self-support provided they do not marry. If a beneficiary category is excluded at retirement, there is no arbitrary opportunity to later provide SBP coverage. The statement above the applicant’s 8 May 07 signature certifies he was “briefed on and understands all of the provisions of the SBP as outlined” in the SBP-RIP. The applicant also indicated on the DD Form 2656, Data for Payment of Retired Personnel, that his son was not disabled. However, the doctor’s statement he provided states the son’s disability has been present since birth. It would be inequitable to those members who chose to elect child coverage when eligible and subsequently received reduced retired pay, to provide an additional opportunity for this member to change his SBP election. There is no evidence of Air Force error or injustice in this case, nor any basis in law to grant relief. The complete AFPC/DPFFF evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: To clarify, he did not comprehend he could elect SBP coverage for his disabled child for life without also electing spouse coverage. While his signature on the SBP-RIP certifies he was briefed on and understood all of the provisions of the SBP outlined in the SBP-RIP, it does not specifically state the child only option can be elected without also electing spousal SBP nor did the SBP counselor inform him of this distinction at the time of his retirement. In addition, premiums for SBP coverage for his son were not calculated by the counselor nor are they estimated on the SBP-RIP as in the case for spousal coverage. Instead, the SBP-RIP simply states that premiums for child coverage are based on his age and the age on his youngest child. Had he understood the provisions of child SBP coverage and actual costs, there is no question he would have selected this option for his son. AFPC/DPFFF’s opinion states his DD Form 2656 indicated his son was not disabled. This is an error. In fact, his son’s disability began before birth. The SBP counselor incorrectly completed this form prior to his counseling meeting on 8 May 07; therefore, this is an error by the Air Force. Had this error not occurred, the SBP counselor may have been more thorough and briefed them specifically regarding the lifelong coverage provision and his actual premium costs based upon his son’s situation (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 an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, to include his rebuttal response to the advisory opinion, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material 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-2012-05727 in Executive Session on 29 Aug 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Dec 12, w/atch. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPFFF, dated 20 Mar 13. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Apr 13. Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Apr 13. Panel Chair