Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9202824
Original file (9202824.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                             SECOND ADDENDUM TO
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  92-02824
            INDEX NUMBER:  137.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO
___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The records be corrected to reflect the former servicemember  made  an
election for Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage at the time  of  his
retirement (1 August 1982) and that the premiums that would result, if
the request is approved, be waived.
___________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF CASE:

On 8 April 1993, the AFBCMR considered and  denied  a  similar  appeal
submitted by the former servicemember (Exhibits A through D).

The former servicemember died on 17 January 1994.  On 4 May 1997,  the
applicant   provided   additional    documentation    and    requested
reconsideration  of  her  husband’s   appeal   (Exhibit   E).    After
consideration of the additional  documentation,  the  Board  found  no
evidence of error or injustice and again denied the  application  (see
Addendum to Record of Proceedings).

On 15 June 1998, the applicant  submitted  another  application  which
contained essentially the same request  and  documentation  previously
considered by the Board (Exhibit F).  On 10 July 1998, she was advised
that unless she submitted  previously  unavailable  evidence  for  the
Board’s consideration, further  action  on  her  application  was  not
possible (Exhibit G).

By letter dated 22 March 1999, the applicant requested reconsideration
of the Board’s decision.  She provided additional documentation in the
form of a statement from a friend who  indicated  that  the  applicant
stayed with her during the period mid-March until mid-July  1982,  and
that during this period, to  the  best  of  her  knowledge,  applicant
received no certified US mail.   Applicant’s  complete  statement  and
attachment are at Exhibit H.
___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

We took note of applicant’s most recent submission,  as  well  as  the
documentation previously reviewed by the Board, in judging the  merits
of  this  case.   As  noted  in  the  Board’s  earlier  findings,  the
applicant’s case differs from the case of Barber v. United States,  in
that there is evidence in the record that  the  required  notification
letter  was  sent  to  the  applicant  notifying  her  of  the  former
servicemember’s decision not to participate in the SBP.  Specifically,
a letter dated 27 May 1982 was sent, by regular mail, as prescribed by
the governing regulation  in  effect  at  the  time,  to  the  address
provided  by  the   former   servicemember.    It   was   the   former
servicemember’s responsibility to furnish a change of  address  if  he
wanted his mail sent to an address other than the one he  provided  on
the AF Form 694 (Data for Payment of Retired Air Force Personnel).  In
our opinion, the Air Force made a good  faith  effort  to  notify  the
applicant  as  was  required  by  the  governing   regulation,   which
implements the law.  Based on the foregoing, and  in  the  absence  of
evidence showing the contrary, we find that the applicant  has  failed
to sustain her burden of establishing the existence of either an error
or  an  injustice  warranting  favorable  action   on   her   request.
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded that a revision of the Board’s earlier
determination is warranted.
___________________________________________________________________

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 25 May 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
      Ms. Ann L. Heidig, Member
      Mr. Mike Novel, Member

The following additional documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit E.  Letter from Applicant, dated 4 May 97, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Jun 98, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 Jul 98.
    Exhibit H.  Letter from Applicant, dated 22 Mar 99, w/atch.





                                   BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                   Panel Chair

                                 ADDENDUM TO
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  92-02824
            INDEX NUMBER:  137.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The records be corrected to reflect the former servicemember  made  an
election for Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage at the time  of  his
retirement (1 August 1982) and that the premiums that would result, if
the request is approved, be waived.

In the alternative, that the two-year waiting period for his  election
made during the 1992 open enrollment period be waived.

___________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF CASE:

On  8  April  1993,  the  AFBCMR  considered  and  denied  a   similar
application submitted by the former servicemember (Exhibits A  through
D).

The former servicemember died on  17  January  1994.   His  widow  has
requested reconsideration of her husband’s appeal, contending that she
never received the  letter  of  notification  advising  her  that  her
husband elected not to participate in the  SBP.   In  support  of  her
request, she provided a handwritten draft and typed copy of a  letter,
dated May 20, 1982, as evidence that she was not  at  the  address  to
which the letter of notification was sent.  (Exhibit E)

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After a thorough review of the applicant’s  additional  documentation,
we are not persuaded that she has been  the  victim  of  an  error  or
injustice.  At the time of the former  servicemember’s  retirement  in
1982, the regulation governing the SBP required  that  the  spouse  be
notified by letter, sent by regular mail, if the member  elected  less
than full coverage on the spouse’s behalf. Unlike the case  of  Barber
v. United States, there is  evidence  in  the  former  servicemember’s
records that the required notification was sent to  the  applicant  at
the  address  provided  by  the  servicemember.   It  was  the  former
servicemember’s responsibility to provide a change of  address  if  he
wanted his mail sent to an address other than the one he provided.  We
noted  applicant’s  contention  that  the  SBP  briefer  should   have
clarified the cost of the coverage  with  her  husband.   However,  as
noted in the Board’s  earlier  decision,  information  concerning  the
monthly cost of SBP coverage was contained on the reverse side of  the
AF Form 694, Data for Payment of Retired Air Force Personnel, executed
by the former servicemember on 27  May  1982.   It  was  the  member’s
responsibility to verify any  information  he  was  unsure  of  before
making his decision with respect to participation in the SBP  program.
In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of  substantial  evidence
to the contrary, we conclude  that  no  basis  exists  to  change  the
previous decision to deny the applicant’s request.

___________________________________________________________________

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 reconsidered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 7 July 1997, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Henry C. Saunders, Panel Chairman
      Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Member
      Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Member

The following additional documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit E.  Letter from Applicant, dated 4 May 97, w/atchs.




                                   HENRY C. SAUNDERS
                                   Panel Chairman


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1992-02824

    Original file (BC-1992-02824.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 4 May 1997, the applicant provided additional documentation and requested reconsideration of her husband’s appeal (Exhibit E). As noted in the Board’s earlier findings, the applicant’s case differs from the case of Barber v. United States, in that there is evidence in the record that the required notification letter was sent to the applicant notifying her of the former servicemember’s decision not to participate in the SBP. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201308

    Original file (0201308.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 22 Apr 02, DPPTR sent a letter to the applicant requesting that she provide a sworn, notarized statement in which she attested that she did not receive notification that her husband had declined SBP coverage at the time of his retirement and that she provide a statement acknowledging and understanding that, if her husband's records are changed, the unpaid contributions (approximately $27,660) will be collected from any annuity payment she would be entitled to receive. The...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9701714

    Original file (9701714.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    As a result of the CG’s decision, the AFBCMR advised the applicant by letter dated 23 Jan 98 that, since the Board lacked the authority to approve claims that were filed more than six years after the death of the service member, her case was being returned and administratively closed (Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Prior to the Pride v. US ruling, the Chief, Retiree Services Branch, AFPC/DPPTR, had provided the following...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1997 | 9603174

    Original file (9603174.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    An AFAFC letter to the decedent, dated 7 October 1972, explained that SBP coverage had been established on his spouse's behalf in compliance with the provision of the law that required establishment of maximum spouse and child coverage if a member, such as the applicant, made no election before retirement. Documents provided by the applicant include a copy of a 7 Oct 72 letter to the decedent from the Air Force Accounting and Finance Center (AFAFC) which explained SBP coverage had been...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9900713

    Original file (9900713.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00713 INDEX NUMBER: 137.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Applicant is the widow of the former servicemember who requests correction of her husband’s records to reflect he elected survivor coverage in her behalf under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) and that the debt for the monthly premiums that would have accrued from the time of his retirement until his...

  • 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 | CY1998 | 9800762

    Original file (9800762.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of her appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, Election Statement For Former Spouse Coverage, DD Form 1882 (Survivor Benefit Plan Election Change - Former Spouse) , DD Form 2293 (Application For Former Spouse Payments From Retired Pay), and other documentation. The law does not permit former spouse coverage after divorce if the member was married at the time of retirement, but declined spouse coverage. The following members of the Board considered this application...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9700619

    Original file (9700619.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Air Force indicated the applicant elected reduced spouse and child coverage The SBP counselor at d o ; F B , Nevada, provided verification that the applicant‘s wife did not attend the 4 Sep 96 SBP pre-retirement briefing. There is no evidence of error or injustice in this case and DPPTR recommends the requested relief be denied. The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 21 May 98, under the provisions of Air...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03497

    Original file (BC-2002-03497.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She did not receive notification of her husband’s SBP election when he retired. Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 02-03497 in Executive Session on 21 January 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36- 2603: Mr. David C. VanGasbeck, Panel Chair Ms....

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9801709

    Original file (9801709.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her deceased husband planned to take his Air Force retirement at age 60. 6 98-01709 On 28 December 1981, ARPC/DPAAR notified the spouse of the deceased member that an RCSBP election had not been received by the deadline and informed her that RCSBP coverage was not in effect and no further election could be made until the member reached age 60. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion...