RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01377
                 INDEX CODE:  137

                 COUNSEL:  NONE

                 HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Applicant is the widow  of  a  former  service  member,  who  requests
corrective action that would entitle her to a  Survivor  Benefit  Plan
(SBP) annuity.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In reviewing paperwork from the National Personnel Records Center, St.
Louis, Missouri and the U. S. Air Force Retired Pay Center, Cleveland,
Ohio, quite a few discrepancies were noted.  (1)  The second  part  of
the AF Form 694, “Data for Payment of Retired Air Force Personnel”  is
blank.  (2)  The application for Survivor Benefit Plan  (SBP)  options
is forged.  Applicant states that this form was filled out  after  her
husband departed his last duty station, Griffiss Air Force Base, Rome,
New York, where he did his retirement paperwork  and  final  physical.
(3)  The signature on this form is not hers (applicant’s).

In support of her request,  applicant  provides  a  copy  of  the  SBP
election form; a letter to Congressman Norman Sisisky, dated  17 April
1998; a copy of the AF Form 694, dated 8 December 1987; and, copies of
her late husband’s certificate of death.

Applicant’s submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the
letter  prepared  by  the  appropriate  office  of  the   Air   Staff.
Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this  Statement
of Facts.

Pursuant  to  a  request  by  the  AFBCMR,  the  Office   of   Special
Investigations (OSI)  investigated  applicant’s  contention  that  the
signature on the SBP election form was a forgery.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Retiree  Services  Branch,  HQ  AFPC/DPPTR,  reviewed  this
application and states there is no basis in law, nor merit in fact, to
grant the applicant relief.  Therefore, they  strongly  recommend  the
request be denied.  Their comments follow.

Public Law (PL) 99-145, (8 Nov 85, but effective 1 Mar 86) requires  a
spouse’s written concurrence be obtained whenever  a  married  retiree
elects less than full spouse SBP  coverage.   If  a  spouse  does  not
concur in the decision, full coverage will be established by operation
of law.

The applicant submits no documentation to substantiate her claim  that
the concurrence statement is a forgery.  The member  elected  children
only coverage and made premium payments based on child  only  coverage
until the youngest  child  lost  eligibility  (1  Jul  97).   Had  the
applicant not concurred in her husband’s decision, full  SBP  coverage
would have been established on her behalf.

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 the  applicant  on
14 September 1998 for review and response within 30 days.  As well,  a
redacted copy of an Air Force Office of Special  Investigations  (OSI)
Report of Investigation (ROI) was forwarded to  the  applicant  on  24
March 1999 for review and response.  However,  as  of  this  date,  no
response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  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
reflect her entitlement to a Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuity.  Her
contentions  are  duly  noted;  however,  we   do   not   find   these
uncorroborated  assertions,  in  and   by   themselves,   sufficiently
persuasive to override  the  rationale  provided  by  the  Air  Force.
Applicant alleges that her signature on AF Form 694, “Data for Payment
of Retired Air Force Personnel,” the concurrence portion  for  an  SBP
election concurring with  less  than  full  spouse  SBP  coverage,  is
forged.  The applicant submits no concrete  evidence  to  substantiate
her allegation that the signature is a forgery.  This Board  requested
the Air Force Office of Special Investigations  (AFOSI)  administer  a
handwriting analysis of the applicant’s signature to determine whether
or not her  signature  is  a  forgery.   Samples  of  the  applicant’s
handwriting were taken to a laboratory for comparison with the copy of
the SBP election document.  However, because the document in  question
was not the original and of poor quality, the laboratory was unable to
render an opinion as  to  the  true  signature.   Applicant  was  also
offered, and agreed to take a polygraph examination concerning whether
she had  signed  the  document  concurring  with  her  late  husband’s
election to decline  SBP  coverage.   The  AFOSI  indicated  that  the
applicant’s responses were found to  be  deceptive.   Although  it  is
unfortunate there is no original document for comparison  with  regard
to the applicant’s signature, we found no persuasive evidence that she
did not sign the document at the time of her late husband’s retirement
which appears to be properly witnessed.  We therefore agree  with  the
recommendation of the Air Force and adopt the rationale  expressed  as
the basis for our decision that the applicant has  failed  to  sustain
her burden that she has suffered either an error or an injustice.   We
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

4.  The documentation provided with this case was sufficient  to  give
the Board a clear understanding of the issues involved and a  personal
appearance, with or without counsel, would not have  materially  added
to that understanding.  Therefore, the request for a  hearing  is  not
favorably considered.

_______________________________________________________________________
_____________________

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 L. Heidig, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 May 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPTR, dated 2 Sep 98.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Sep 98.
   Exhibit D.  ROI, OSI, dated 25 Jan 99.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 24 Mar 99.




                                   BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                   Panel Chair