RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00775 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to establish Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage for his spouse. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He thought his spouse was covered under the SBP; however, his retiree account statement does not reflect her as being covered. Since his retirement, in 1994, he believed she was covered and now realizes that his documents are incorrect. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFFF recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. DPFF notes that a member is required to make an SBP decision prior to retiring. Public Law (PL) 99-145, 8 Nov 85, established the requirement that a spouse's written concurrence be obtained if a member, who retires on or after 1 Mar 86, elects less than full spouse SBP coverage (Title 10, USC Section 1448 (a)(3)). If the spouse does not concur in the election, coverage will be established on the spouse's behalf by operation of law. When a member fails to elect SBP coverage for an eligible spouse, coverage cannot be established thereafter except during a Congressionally-mandated open enrollment period. When child SBP coverage is established, all eligible children are potential beneficiaries. In the event of the member's death, an annuity will be paid in equal shares to the children who remain eligible. Unmarried children remain eligible until age 18, or 22 if in school full-time. PL's 105-261 and 108-375 authorized open enrollment periods (1 Mar 99 - 29 Feb 00 and 1 Oct 05 - 30 Sep 06, respectively) that allowed members, who declined or had less than the maximum level of SBP coverage, an opportunity to elect to participate or increase their coverage. The applicant and his spouse were married, but he elected child only SBP coverage based on full retired pay prior to his 1 May 94 retirement, and his spouse concurred in his election. The premium for child only coverage was less than $4 per month. Had the applicant elected spouse and child coverage, the cost for his spouse and eligible children would have been approximately $88 per month. The youngest child lost eligibility in Jul 07 due to age. There is no evidence the applicant submitted a valid election to add his wife during the 99 - 00 or 05 – 06 open enrollment periods. The applicant made a valid SBP election for child only coverage with his spouse's concurrence. It was the applicant's responsibility to elect the SBP coverage that best suited his family at that time. His spouse's signature on section VIII of the DD Form 2656, Data for Payment of Retired Personnel, 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. The applicant had three opportunities to elect SBP coverage for his spouse, but failed to do so. The complete DPFFF evaluation is at Exhibit B. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 30 May 14 for review and comment 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 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 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. 4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 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-2014-00775 in Executive Session on 17 Feb 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Feb 14. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPFFF, dated 15 May 14. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 14.