AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-02519 
COUNSEL:  None 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

1 4  1998 

APPLICANT REOUESTS: 

Corrective  action  that  would  entitle  her  to  a  Retired 
Serviceman's  Family Protection Plan  (RSFPP) or Survivor Benefit 
Plan (SBP) annuity. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

Her former deceased husband told her he would continue to pay on 
RSFPP/SBP and she requests the document that her husband signed 
terminating her coverage. 

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a Certificate of 
Death of her former husband, a Decree of Dissolution of Marriage, 
a Certificate of Marriage, and a list of names indicating 81 -  82 
and 92 -  93 open enrollment. 
Applicant's complete submission is attached 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. 
Accord$ngly,  there  is  no  need  to  recite  these  facts  in  this 
Record of Proceedings. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Chief, Retiree  Services  Branch,  AFPC/DPPTR,  reviewed  this 
application and indicated that prior to his 1 Jul 70 retirement, 
the applicant's  former deceased husband elected spouse and child 
RSFPP  coverage  plus  Option 4 .  
Although  the  applicant's  RSFPP 
coverage terminated following their 31 Oct  83  divorce, there is 

c 

AFBCMR 97-025 19 

no  record  he  notified  the  finance  center  of  the  divorce  nor 
requested  termination  of  RSFPP  monthly  premiums. 
Premiums 
erroneously continued to be  deducted from his retired pay until 
his 30 Jan 97 death.  He was eligible to elect spouse coverage on 
the  applicant's  behalf  during  the  1972  and  1981  SBP  open 
enrollments.  He could have  elected  former spouse SBP coverage 
for her during the 1992 open enrollment.  There is no record he 
returned  an  election  nor  any  record  that  notices  of  the 
enrollments  were  not  delivered  to  him.  Although  applicant's 
former husband may have mistakenly believed that she was eligible 
to receive an RSFPP annuity following their divorce, his belief 
had no basis in fact or law.  Furthermore, there is also no basis 
in law by which the applicant would be entitled to an SBP annuity 
as the service member failed to elect coverage on her behalf.  It 
would be inequitable to those members who chose to participate in 
the SBP when eligible, to provide entitlement to the applicant on 
the basis of the evidence presented. 
DPPTR  further  indicates  that,  Public  Law  (PL)  87-381,  which 
established  the  RSFPP,  provided  that  a  covered  spouse  lost 
eligibility upon  divorce, but  did  not  contain  a  former  spouse 
coverage option.  However, spouse premiums  could be  terminated 
following divorce if  the member additionally selected Option 4. 
Any  refund  of  premiums  is  subject  to  the  six-year  statute  of 
limitations. 
PL 92-425, which implemented the SBP, authorized an 18-month open 
enrollment period  (21 Sep 72 -  20 Mar 74).  PLs 97-35 and 101-189 
later authorized  two additional open enrollments periods  (1 Oct 
81 -  30 Sep 82 and 1 Apr 92  -  31 Mar  93, respectively).  During 
these opportunities, members were advised of their eligibility to 
make an election under the SBP.  The enrollment packets, as well 
as  the  retiree  newsletters  published  during  those  timeframes, 
were  sent  to the member's  correspondence address maintained  by 
the  finance  center  and  contained  information,  instructions, 
examples,  and  points-of-contact  for  members  to  use  to  gain 
additional  information.  There  is no  evidence  of  an Air  Force 
error or  injustice in this  case  and  no basis  in  law to  grant 
relief.  Therefore, DPPTR recommends this request be denied. 

A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit B. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 
15 Dec 97 for review and response.  As of this date, no response 
has been received by this office. 

2 

AFBCMR 97-025 19 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
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  probable  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 and adopt their-rationale as the 
basis  for  our  conclusion  that  the  applicant  has  not  been  the 
victim  of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of 
evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

The  applicant be  notified  that  the  evidence presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  material  error  or 
injustice; that  the  application  was  denied  without  a  personal 
appearance; and  that  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 this application in 
Executive Session on 16 July 1998,  under  the provisions  of  Air 
Force Instruction 3 6 - 2 6 0 3 :  

Mr. Henry C. Saunders, Panel Chair 
Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Member 
Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Member 
Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner  (without 
+ 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

te) 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Aug 97, w/atch. 
Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPTR, dated 2 6   Nov 97. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Dec 97. 
/ 

/ 

3 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

JIEADQUARTERS AIR  FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS 

'2B-m 1997, 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPCIDPPTR 

550 C Street West Ste 11 
Randolph AFB TX  781 50-471 3 

SUBJECT:  Application for Correction of Military Records 

Reference: 

Requested Correction:  The applicant is requesting corrective action that would entitle 
her to a Retired Serviceman's Family Protection Pian (RSFPP) or Survivor Benefit Piar, (SBP) 
annuity . 

Basis for Rewest:  The petitioner claims that the member told her he would continue to 
pay on the RSFPPISBP and wants to see the document that the decedent signed terminating 
her coverage. 

Background: 

a.  Public Law (PL) 87-381, which established the RSFPP, provided that a covered 

spouse lost eligibility upon divorce, but did not contain a former spouse coverage option. 
However, spouse premiums could be terminated following divorce if the member additionally 
selected Option 4.  Any refund of premiums is subject to the six-year statute of limitations. 

b.  PL 92-425, which implemented the SBP, authorized an 18-month open enrollment 
period (21 Sep 72 - 20 Mar 74).  PLs 97-35 and 101-189 later authorized two additional open 
enrollment periods (1 Oct 81 - 30 Sep 82 and 1 Apr 92 - 31 Mar 93 respectiveiy).  During these 
opportunities, members were advised of their eligibility to make an election under the SBP. 
The enrollment packets, as well as the retiree newsletters published during those timeframes 
were sent to the member's correspondence address maintained by the finance center and 
contained information, instructions, examples, and points-of-contact for members to use to 
gain additional information. 

Facts: 

a.  Prior to his 1 Jul 70 retirement, the decedent elected spouse and child RSFPP 

coverage plus Option 4.  Although the applicant's RSFPP coverage terminated following their 
31 Oct 83 divorce, there is no record the member notified the finance center of the divorce nor 
requested termination of RSFPP monthly premiums.  Premiums erroneously continued to be 
deducted from his retired pay until his 30 Jan 97 death. 

b.  The decedent was eligible to elect spouse coverage on the petitioner's behalf during 
the 72 and 81 SBP open enrollments.  He could have elected former spouse SBP coverage for 

her during the 92 open enrollment.  There is no record the decedent returned an d d m ,  nw 
any record notices of the enrollments were not delivered to him. 

Discussion: Although the member may have mistakenly belkved thrt the @ w n  

eligible to receive an RSFPP annuity following their divorce, his befief hrd 110 bad8 h kd 01 
law.  Furthermore, there is also no basis in law by which the applicant wouM bo entitled to an 
SBP annuity as the member failed to elect coverage on her behalf.  It would be inequitabk to 
those members who chose to participate in the SBP when eligible, to provide entitlement to the 
applicant on the basis of the evidence presented. 

Recommendation: There is no evidence of an Air F o m  en'ror or injustb &I  thk anso 
and no basis in law to grant relief; therefore, we recommend this request be denied.  HWVW, 
if the Board's decision is to grant relief, the member's record should be corrected to show he 
elected spouse only SBP coverage based on full retired pay effective 21 Sep 72, coverage 
was suspended effective 1 Nov 83, and he elected former spouse coverage effective 
1 Mar 86  An effective date of 1 Mar  86 is appropriate as this is the first date former spouse 
coverage could have been established under the same costs and conditions as spouse 
coverage  Approval shoufd be contingent upon recoupment of appropriate SBP retroactive 
costs. 

-e 

/---I 

/7 

PAT PEEK, DAFC 
Chief, Retiree Services Branch 
Directorate of Pes Program Management