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
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00951
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...
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...
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...
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.
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.
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
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
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...
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.