RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00373
INDEX CODE: 137.02
COUNSEL: None
4 HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her deceased spouse’s records be corrected to show he elected full,
immediate Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP) coverage for
his wife.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Her deceased spouse never received the package notifying him of his
eligibility to participate in the RCSBP. He lived in Kansas City and
was commuting to Belle, MO. The package was not mailed to his Kansas
City address. She found the package in a box and her husband never
saw it. She does not believe a mailing technicality or physical
address instead of a PO Box or her signing for the package and not him
justifies denial of earned benefits. All of his other papers were in
order and this would have been completed also, if he would have
personally received it.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
A certified package, notifying the member of his eligibility to
participate in the RCSBP was mailed to his home address: Although the
package was not signed for by the member, it was signed for by his
spouse, Debbie Gray, on 16 September 1996.
There is no record of an election being received by the Air Reserve
Personnel Center.
The requirement that the member submit an election within 90 days of
receipt is established by Title 10, United States Code, Section
1448(a)(2)(B). The member would have been eligible to participate in
the RCSBP during the open enrollment period, 1 March 1999 through 29
February 2000 or the Survivor Benefit Plan on 19 September 2016, when
he reached age 60.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Deputy Director of Customer Assistance, HQ ARPC/DR, reviewed this
application and states that the applicant is questioning why the
package was not mailed to the member’s Kansas City address, as he was
commuting from Kansas City to Belle, MO. It is the member’s
responsibility to provide an address at which he could receive
official correspondence. She also states that as his widow, she
should be entitled to the member’s retired pay and wonders why a
mailing technicality would preclude this. The provision of law which
would allow the election of a non-respondent to default to the
immediate annuity (Option C) is constantly under review; however, as
of this date, it remains unchanged. Although the applicant may have
provided an accurate account of the circumstances in this case, they
recommend the application be denied.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and states that if she
understands correctly, the member has/or is responsible solely to
elect changes or provide status changes. This is her point exactly.
A certified package notifying the member of his eligibility should be
mailed certified/registered directly for the member only to sign. A
package of this importance should not be mailed to address only, but
by member’s return signature only delivered. This could have been
avoided if the USAFR would be responsible for contacting the member
only as the member is the only responsible for contacting USAFR. As
the spouse, she has no rights to make changes, only the member. This
discrepancy must be corrected immediately and eligibility stated due
to the fact that the member was never directly notified or indirectly
notified. As the letter states it is always the member’s
responsibility - thus the USAFR should be responsible to contact the
member only in such correspondence of this importance. She recommends
a change in member contact as suggested. Members only return
signature would have settled this and an accurate account of the
member’s decision would not be in question.
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 not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice. Applicant’s contentions
are duly noted; 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 15 July 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
Mr. Mike Novel, Member
Mr. Ann L. Heidig, Member
Ms. Gloria J. Williams, Examiner (without vote)
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Feb 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ARPC/DR, dated 18 Mar 99.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 5 Apr 99.
Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 17 Apr 99.
BARBARA A. WESTGATE
Panel Chair
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00094 137.02 (Deceased) COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her late husband’s records be corrected to show he elected spouse only coverage in the Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP) when he was first eligible. A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation, with attachment, is...
The member remained eligible to make the election at age 60. 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 their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant’s Congressman statement, dated 31 Jul 02.
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01652
The member remained eligible to make the election at age 60. 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 their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant’s Congressman statement, dated 31 Jul 02.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00217
Upon contacting the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) regarding RCSBP benefits, she was told her spouse had not made an election for coverage at the time of his 20- year letter or during following open enrollment periods. She questions a letter her spouse had received dated 1 March 1999 from HQ ARPC notifying him of an RCSBP Open Enrollment period. The Board noted that the now- deceased former member received the initial RCSBP package at his home on 8 March 1989, and did not respond to it.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02163
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPS states that the spouse of the former member is entitled to other benefits as the unremarried widow of a retirement eligible member. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The spouse of the former member states that a package was sent certified mail and signed for by...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00348
She has learned since her husband’s death that this package was mailed as registered mail with a suspense date of 90 days, requiring an election of A, B, or C to determine her annuity. There is no evidence he made an RCSBP election at that time. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded by thanking the Air Force for...
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...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her spouse signed for the election package and it was never received by her. 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. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00978
Her husband was notified of his eligibility to participate in the RCSBP by letter dated 28 December 1988. He made no election within 90 days of receipt of notification, and was automatically enrolled in Option A, “Deferred Election Until Age 60.” During the RCSBP Open Seasons 1 April 1992 through 31 March 1993, and 1 March 1999 through 29 February 2000, members who had elected less than full coverage or no coverage for their spouse/children were able to change their election to cover their...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00045
ARPC has no record of receiving an election request from the servicemember. The applicant, as a widow of a retirement eligible servicemember, apparently is eligible for other benefits, such as the Commissary, Base Exchange and Tricare. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a...