RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04848 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her late spouse’s record be changed to show he elected spouse coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The name of spouse and dates to whom the decedent married is in error. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 1 April 1999, the decedent retired in the grade of senior master sergeant. The decedent and the applicant were married on 14 February 2002. The decedent died on 2 September 2011. The remaining 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 former service member was not married, but had dependent children; however, he declined SBP coverage prior to his 1 April 1999 retirement. When the former service member and the applicant married - he did not request SBP coverage be established on the applicant’s behalf within the first year of their marriage. There is no evidence he submitted an election during the 2005 - 2006 open enrollment period. Although the applicant claims the name of the spouse and dates to whom the former service member married was in error, she has not provided any documentation to verify her claim. The former service member completed a DD Form 2656, Data for Payment of Retired Personnel, which reflects he was not married at the time of his retirement. Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) records also reflect the former service member was not married prior to his retirement date and the applicant provided a copy of her marriage certificate to the former service member which reflects their marriage was after his retirement. There is no basis in law which would entitle the applicant to the SBP. 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. It would be inequitable to those members, who chose to participate when eligible and subsequently received reduced retired pay, and to other widows, whose sponsors chose not to participate, to provide entitlement to this widow on the basis of the evidence presented. There is no evidence of Air Force error or injustice in this case. The complete DPFFF evaluation is at Exhibit B. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states that she has been trying to obtain benefits based on her late husband’s passing. She received a letter from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) office that is in error. It states that they were divorced on 28 October 1998 which is not true. They married in 2002 and remained married until his death on 2 September 2011. She researched and discovered that her late spouse was in fact divorced on 28 October 1998 but from someone else. She was able to obtain the accurate information based on public record from the records department at the Okaloosa County Court. She has been fighting the battle to obtain all benefits that she is qualified to receive. She has lost her home and key material items they accumulated through the years. She is appalled at the situation that is occurring with regards to the claim of annuity benefits for SBP. She has been denied benefits that she believes she may be eligible for. She questions whether the records at DFAS are correct. She demands that a complete audit be completed of her late spouse’s records. It seems logical that if her late spouse’s records at DFAS and the Department of the Air Force are inaccurate, that perhaps his records of SBP elections may have also been inaccurate or missing. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, 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, to include her rebuttal comments, 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 that the former member did not submit a valid election as required by law to establish spouse coverage. With regard to the DFAS letter the applicant received, records do reflect that the applicant did in fact receive an erroneous letter from DFAS. Once the error was noted, a letter was sent to the applicant apologizing for the inaccurate information. However, this error does not negate the fact that there is no record of receipt of an SBP election requesting SBP coverage for the applicant within the first year of their marriage. 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 an 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-2013-04848 in Executive Session on 6 January 2015, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-04848 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 October 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPFFF, dated 8 January 2014. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 January 2014. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 25 January 2014.