RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-04082

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 




APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show that he selected the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) for his spouse. 



APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

An error was made during his out-processing for retirement.  He was not advised prior to or during his out processing that he could elect spouse SBP coverage for his wife.  He was under the impression coverage for the spouse was automatic by law.  

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



STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 13 Nov 00, the applicant and his spouse signed and initialed a DD Form 2656, Data for Payment of Retired Personnel, electing and acknowledging the applicant’s election for child only coverage under the SBP. 

On 1 Jan 01, the applicant was retired from active duty in the grade of master sergeant (E-7). 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described 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 an injustice.  Each service member attends a one-on-one SBP briefing given by an SBP counselor prior to their retirement and while SBP counselors present facts and explain the provisions of the program during pre-retirement counseling, members are ultimately responsible for making the election that best meets their particular situation.  There is no indication the applicant was improperly counseled prior to his retirement and he made a valid SBP election for child only coverage with his wife’s concurrence.  Her signature in section XI of the DD Form 2656, indicates her acknowledgement of the decision to elect child only SBP coverage and that she received information that explains the options available and effects of those options.  Additionally, Public Law (PL) 108-375, 28 Oct 04, authorized an open enrollment period beginning 1 Oct 05 through 20 Sep 06, that allowed members, who declined or had less than maximum level of SBP coverage, an opportunity to elect to participate or increase their coverage.  Members were advised by direct mail of their eligibility to make an election.  Enrollment packets, as well as the Afterburner, News for USAF Retired Personnel, published during these timeframes, were sent to the correspondence address each member had provided to the finance center, and contained points of contact for them to use to gain additional information.  There is no evidence the applicant submitted a valid election to add his wife during the 05-06 open enrollment period.  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.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFFF evaluation is at Exhibit C.



APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 6 Jan 14 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (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 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 (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 requested 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-2013-04082 in Executive Session on 9 Oct 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	
The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Sep 13.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPFFF, dated 11 Dec 13.
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Jan 14.

						







3