RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04527 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be allowed to terminate spouse coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was in an automobile accident and suffered from traumatic brain injury and does not have any memory of the decision he may have made when he got out of the military. In support of the applicant’s appeal, he provides a personal statement. The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit B. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: DPFFF recommends denial. DPFFF states the applicant and his spouse were married, had dependent children, and he elected spouse and child coverage based on full retired pay under the SBP prior to being permanently retired for disability effective 19 April 1994. On 25 March 1994, the SBP counselor at MacDill AFB FL, briefed him on the options and effects of the SBP, and there is no indication he was confused or not capable of making an SBP decision. The member’s retired pay has been exceeded by the disability compensation awarded to him by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) since his retirement. As a result, there was and is not sufficient retired pay remaining after the VA reduces his retired pay for DFAS-CL to collect monthly SBP premiums. The applicant has directly remitted some of the SBP premiums, but has accrued an outstanding and increasing debt of approximately $3,980. The Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) reflect he and his spouse divorced on 29 September 1995, and he and his second spouse married on 10 November 1999. By operation of law, and absent an election for former spouse coverage, or an election to not resume SBP coverage on her behalf, the second spouse became the SBP spouse beneficiary on the first anniversary of their marriage. DFAS-CL provided a copy of the applicant’s 18 March 2011 DD Form 2656-6, Survivor Benefit Plan Election Change Certificate, in which he requested SBP coverage be established on his second spouse’s behalf. The DD Form 2656-6 contained an additional statement, signed by the applicant, that he would “continue to pay back- payments until there is no back-payments.” There is no indication the member was improperly counseled prior to his retirement when he made a valid election for spouse coverage. Following his marriage to his second spouse and before they submitted their request to DFAS-CL to update his SBP records, they had ample opportunity to investigate SBP alternatives and options. The member offers no explanation of why he requested DFAS-CL establish SBP coverage on his spouse’s behalf and then subsequently, request that coverage be terminated. In the event of his death, DFAS-CL would suppress the spouse’s $397 monthly SBP payments until the retroactive premium debt is recovered. It would be inequitable to those members, who properly did not reinstate spouse coverage during the time authorized to exercise this option, to provide an additional opportunity for this member to change his SBP election. There is no evidence of error or injustice in this case. The DPFFF complete evaluation is at Exhibit B. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states he desires to disenroll from SBP. He has insurance that benefits him more than SBP. The applicant’s response is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ _ 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 an 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 the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of the existence 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 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-2012-04527 in Executive Session on 31 July 2013 and 1 August 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 September 2012, w/atch. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPFFF, dated 26 October 2012. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 November 2012. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 19 November 2012.