Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9703355
Original file (9703355.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NO: 97-03355 
COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

AUG  2  i 

Applicant  requests that her  late husband's  records be  corrected 
to reflect that he  elected coverage for her under the  Survivor 
Benefit Plan (SBP).  Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. 

The appropriate  Air  Force office evaluated applicant's request 
and provided  an advisory opinion to  the Board  recommending the 
application be  denied  (Exhibit C).  The  advisory  opinion  was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and response  (Exhibit D). 
Applicant has provided a response (Exhibit E). 

The  application  was  not  timely  filed;  however,  it  is  in  the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 

After  careful  consideration  of  applicant's  request  and  the 
available  evidence of  record, we  find  insufficient evidence of 
error or injustice to warrant corrective action.  The facts and 
opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the 
evidence  of  record  and  have  not  been  adequately  rebutted  by 
applicant. 
Absent  persuasive  evidence  applicant  was  denied 
rights  to  which  entitled,  appropriate  regulations  were  not 
followed, or appropriate standards were not applied, we  find no 
basis to disturb the existing record. 

Accordingly, applicant's request is denied. 

The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision. 
Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and 
will only be  reconsidered upon the presentation of new relevant 
evidence  which  was  not  reasonably  available  at  the  time  the 
application was filed. 

- 

Members  of  the Board  Mr.  Thomas S. Markiewicz, Mr.  Henry  Romo 
Jr.,  and  Mr.  Walter  J.  Hosey,  considered  this  application  on 
19 August  1998,  in accordance with  the provisions of Air  Force 
Instruction 36-2603, and the governing statute, 10, U.S.C. 1552. 

7 - v  

THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ 

' Panel Chair 

Exhibits: 

A.  Applicant's DD Form 149 
B.  Available Master Personnel Records  . 
C.  Advisory Opinion 
D. 
E.  Applicant's Response 

AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion 

U 

DEPARTMENT  O F  THE A I R   F O R C E  

HEADQUARTERS  AIR  FORCE  P E R S O N N E L  C E N T E R  

RANDOLPH AIR  FORCE E A S E  TEXAS 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPTR 

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

SUBJECT:  Application for Correction of Military Records 

Reauested Correction:  The applicant, widow of the above-named retired member, is 

requesting corrective action that would entitle her to a Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuity. 

Basis for Reauest:  The applicant claims she was never informed she did or did not 

have survivor benefits, and that the decedent was never notified of any open seasons. 

Backaround: 
a.  Public Law (PL) 87-381, Retired Serviceman’s Family Protection Ptan (RSFPP), was 
in effect when the member retired.  Members were briefed and required to make their RSFPP 
elections before completing 18 years of service.  No spouse notification was required.  The 
RSFPP has several unattractive features and less than 15 percent of members retired during its 
existence enrolled. 

b.  Public Law (PL) 92425, which established the SBP on 21 Sep 72, authorized an 

18-month enrollment period for retired members to elect SBP coverage.  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, respectively.  During all open enrollment periods, members were advised 
by direct mail of their eligibility to make an election.  The enrollment packets, as well as the 
Afterburner, USAF News For Retired Personnel, published during those timeframes, were sent 
by direct mail to the member’s correspondence address maintained by the finance center and 
contained points of contact for members to use to gain additional information. 

c.  There were no provisions in the laws during these open enrollment periods requiring 

the Services to notify spouses of retired members if the member did not enroll.  Federal 
Appeals Court decision-Appeal 85-927, Helen Passaro v. U.S.--held that the notice provision 
does not apply to a service member already entitled to retired or retainer pay on 21 Sep 72. 

Facts:  Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) records indicate the 
decedent and applicant were married on 15 Jan 44.  The member did not enroll in the RSFPP 
prior to his 1 Aug 69 retirement.  There is no evidence he returned an election form during any 
of the three SBP open enrollment periods.  He died on 15 Aug 97. 

Discussion:  Microfiche records verify SBP enrollment packets and newsletters mailed 
to the decedent during the 81-82 and 92-93 open enrollment periods (copies enclosed in case) 

9703355 
- . . . . . . . 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9703688

    Original file (9703688.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). d. There were no provisions in the laws during these open enrollment periods requiring the Services to notify spouses of retired members if the member did not enroll. However, if the decision of the Board is to grant relief, the decedent's record should be corrected to show on 21 Sep 72 he made an SBP election for spouse...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9702519

    Original file (9702519.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He could have elected former spouse SBP coverage for her during the 1992 open enrollment. However, spouse premiums could be terminated following divorce if the member additionally selected Option 4. He could have elected former spouse SBP coverage for her during the 92 open enrollment.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9800412

    Original file (9800412.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit B). Applicant's response to the advisory opinions is at Exhibit D. After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action. i - - 550 C Street West, Suite 14 Randolph AFB TX 78150-4716 MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR FROM: HQ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9803442

    Original file (9803442.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The evidence also establishes the deceased member’s efforts to provide the applicant with all the benefits she was entitled to as the spouse of a retired service member. Microfiche records verify SBP enrollment packets and newsletters were mailed to the address the decedent provided to the finance center during the 1981-1982 and 1992-1993 open enrollment periods. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9900488

    Original file (9900488.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 12 Jun 73, the deceased member submitted an SBP election statement during the initial enrollment period, declining coverage. Public Law (PL) 92-425, which established SBP on 21 Sep 72, authorized an 18-month enrollment period for retired members to elect SBP coverage. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that her late husband’s records should be corrected to show that he elected SBP coverage for her.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200517

    Original file (0200517.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    There were no provisions in the law at that time to notify spouses if the servicemember did not elect coverage. There is no evidence that the servicemember elected SBP during any of the authorized open enrollments. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Apr 02.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02399

    Original file (BC-2004-02399.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: At the time of his retirement from the Air Force he elected child coverage under the SBP. If his daughter’s disability was diagnosed while she was otherwise eligible, the member could have elected coverage on her behalf during the initial open enrollment; however, there is no evidence such an election was submitted. We believe the applicant would have elected to provide coverage for his daughter...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-02569

    Original file (BC-2008-02569.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    His record contains a copy of a 28 Apr 93 letter from DFAS-DE advising him, among other things, that the 12 Feb 93 open enrollment election he submitted was “invalid” because block 10 did not indicate the base amount upon which he wished to establish coverage. His open enrollment election form contained what appears to be the monthly SBP premium amount he thought would be collected from his retired pay if he elected coverage on a reduced level of retired pay. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00953

    Original file (BC-2005-00953.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Subsequently, Public Laws (PLs) 97-35, 101-189, and 105-261 authorized additional SBP open enrollment periods (1 Oct 81 – 30 Sep 82, 1 Apr 92 – 31 Mar 93, and 1 Mar 99 – 29 Feb 00, respectively) so that retirees could elect or increase SBP coverage. Similarly, the Air Force may not pay an SBP annuity to the applicant, because the member retired before the implementation of the SBP and he did not choose to provide SBP coverage for her when he was eligible to do so. Exhibit C. Letter,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02915

    Original file (BC-2005-02915.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Public Law (PL) 92-425, which established the SBP on 21 Sep 72, authorized an enrollment period for retired members to elect SBP coverage. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit B. 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 that the applicant has not been the victim of...