Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9800951
Original file (9800951.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00951
            INDEX CODE:  137.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be allowed to  discontinue  his  spouse  and  child  coverage  under  the
Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuity.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He declined the option to have SBP payments taken from  his  pay  and  there
appears to be no record of his choice.  He states  that  he  never  received
notification nor letters requiring any action.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was married on 14 June 1982.

The Defense Finance and Accounting Service - Cleveland Center (DFAS-CL)  did
not receive an  SBP  election  prior  to  the  applicant’s  1 February  1998
retirement.  Since he was married and had  a  dependent  child,  spouse  and
child coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan, was established,  to  comply
with the law, effective 1 February 1998.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Retiree  Services  Branch,  Directorate  of  Personnel  Program
Management, HQ AFPC/DPPTR, reviewed this application  and  states  that  the
member’s claim that he was never  notified  that  any  action  was  required
prior to his retirement date is without merit.   Military  Personnel  Flight
(MPF) records at RAF Mildenhall UK shows the  SBP  counselor  followed  pre-
retirement instructions as required by AFI 36-3006:   the  counselor  called
the member and setup an appointment for 17 October 1997 (more than  60  days
prior to the effective date of  retirement),  sent  the  member’s  wife  the
mandatory notification letter and sent  a  follow-up  letter  on  29 October
1997 to the member’s active duty address advising him that since  he  missed
his appointment, action needed to be  accomplished  on  his  part  prior  to
retiring or maximum SBP coverage would be established.   To  provide  relief
at this time based on the evidence submitted would provide the applicant  an
opportunity not afforded other retirees  and  is  not  justified.   However,
Public Law 105-85 (18 November 1997)  permits  retirees  a  one-year  window
beginning on the second anniversary  of  retirement  to  terminate  all  SBP
participation.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed  the  advisory  opinion  and  states  that  he  never
received the 29 October 1997 letter from the SBP counselor before  now;  his
spouse never received nor has she seen the 18 July 1997 letter from the  SBP
counselor before now; he asks, why was  a  telephone  appointment  necessary
for a briefing that he should have known about over three months  before  he
left England?  Why did the survivor benefits counselor make  an  appointment
with him that should have been made by her predecessor in July 1997?   Since
this program is driven by law, why was there little effort made  to  contact
the person it is designed to protect?  Why was a letter sent to his PCS  Box
on 29 October 1997, when he left the country on 22 October 1997?  His  leave
address was indicated on his PCS orders.  This should have been sent to  the
address on the orders, in which case he could have opted not to be  enrolled
in the SBP.  He does not ask for special consideration  or  opportunity  not
afforded to retirees.  He ask for what should be fair to  any  retiree  with
the same or similar circumstances.  There could have been  and  should  have
been some other method for ensuring this matter was properly  addressed  and
taken care of to everyone’s satisfaction.

Applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law  or
regulations.

2.    The application was timely filed.

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


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

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 March 1998, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPTR, dated 1 September 1998.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, MIBR, dated 24 August 1998.
   Exhibit E.  Applicant's Response, dated 13 October 1998.




                                   BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00951

    Original file (BC-1998-00951.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    To provide relief at this time based on the evidence submitted would provide the applicant an opportunity not afforded other retirees and is not justified. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and states that he never received the 29 October 1997 letter from the SBP counselor before now; his spouse never...

  • 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 | CY1998 | 9703450

    Original file (9703450.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    When a member fails to complete an SBP election prior to retirement, coverage is established for all eligible beneficiaries by operation of law. Title 10 USC Section 1448 (a) (3) requires that the spouse of a married member must concur in any election that provides less than full spouse SBP coverage. The statement from the member's husband concurring in her election to decline coverage is inappropriate in that he does not clearly acknowledge retired pay ceases when the member dies, that he...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9700262

    Original file (9700262.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He has insurance coverage. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. - APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 14 July 1997 for review and comment within 30 days. In fact, the available evidence clearly indicates that the applicant was counseled regarding the costs of participating in the SBP and he did elect to participate.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9703583

    Original file (9703583.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). The member‘s wife elected spouse and child coverage based on full retired pay effective I Feb 98. However, if the Boards decision is to grant relief, the member's record should be corrected to show on 31 Jan 94 he elected spouse and child SBP coverage based on full retired pay.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9700407

    Original file (9700407.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-00407 SEP 2 1898 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect he declined to participate in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) program at the time his name was placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL). (Exhibit A) STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant elected insurable interest SBP coverage, naming his father as beneficiary,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00680

    Original file (BC-1998-00680.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Retiree Services Branch, AFPC/DPPTR, reviewed this application and states that a member who is married at retirement and fails to provide coverage for an eligible spouse may not provide coverage in the future, unless Congress authorizes an open enrollment period. The one-year enrollment period to add family members acquired after retirement is applicable only when no previous category of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9800680

    Original file (9800680.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Retiree Services Branch, AFPC/DPPTR, reviewed this application and states that a member who is married at retirement and fails to provide coverage for an eligible spouse may not provide coverage in the future, unless Congress authorizes an open enrollment period. The one-year enrollment period to add family members acquired after retirement is applicable only when no previous category of the...

  • 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 | 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.