RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-02148
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was married on 28 June 1997.  He obtained a dependent 
identification card; however, he was not advised that he could 
elect SBP for his spouse.

In support of the applicant’s appeal he provides a copy of his 
marriage license and dependent identification card.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, 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:

AFPC/DPFFF recommends denial.  DPFFF states the applicant was 
not married, but had eligible children and elected child only 
SPB coverage based on full retired pay prior to his 1 October 
1992 retirement.  The youngest child lost eligibility in July 
2004 due to age.  The applicant married on 28 June 1997, but did 
not notify the Defense Finance and Accounting Service – 
Cleveland Center (DFAS-CL) of the change to his marital status 
or request SBP coverage be established on his wife’s behalf 
within the first year of their marriage.

It is the responsibility of each retiree to take timely and 
appropriate action to ensure their spouses are properly 
designated for military benefits.  The Afterburner routinely 
contained articles to advise retirees of their SBP options when 
marrying after retirement, and these newsletters were mailed to 
the member.  Had he elected coverage during either of the open 
enrollments, he would have had to pay a lump-sum buy-in of 
approximately $3,700 (99-00) or $7,900 (05-06).  Neither open 
enrollment contained provisions for waiving or extending the 
one-year period authorized to participate.  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.  Providing 
the applicant additional time to elect SBP coverage would be 
inequitable to other retirees in similar situations and is not 
justified by the facts.

The complete DPFFF evaluation is at Exhibit B.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 5 August 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 
30 days (Exhibit C).  As of this date, no response has been 
received by this office. 

________________________________________________________________
_

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by 
existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was 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-2013-02148 in Executive Session on 5 February 2014, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence was considered:

  Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 April 2013, w/atchs.
  Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPFFF, dated 1 July 2013, w/atch.
  Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 August 2013.





2


3