Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9802502
Original file (9802502.doc) Auto-classification: Denied


                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02505
            INDEX CODE: 137.01

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED: Yes

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her late husband’s military records and Defense Finance and Accounting
Service (DFAS) retired pay  records  show  that  she  is  entitled  to
receive Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) payments.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was told she would  not  receive  SBP  benefits  because  survivor
benefit premium payments had been withheld only at the children’s rate
and not at the spousal rate.   She  was  not  briefed  concerning  the
impact and importance of SBP elections nor  asked  to  sign  documents
acknowledging her rights or waiver of her rights to SBP benefits.  She
believes either an error was made by DFAS not  withholding  sufficient
premiums from her late husband’s pay for  spousal  survivor  benefits,
or,  an  injustice  occurred  because  the   AFB,   ,   SBP/retirement
counselors did not ensure she was advised of coverage election.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant and deceased member were married  at  the  time  of  his
1 Apr 87 retirement.

On 14 Jan 87, the member was briefed on the provisions of the SBP  and
elected child only coverage.

On 3 Mar 87, the applicant  signed  a  statement  that  she  had  been
informed of SBP options and effects  and  concurred  in  the  member’s
election to provide children only coverage.

On 19 Feb 97, the member died.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Retiree  Services  Branch,  AFPC/DPPTR,   reviewed   this
application and indicated that official documents on  file  show  that
the member chose to provide coverage for only his  children  and  made
premium payments based on that coverage until the youngest child  lost
eligibility effective 1 Sep 91.  Had the applicant  not  concurred  in
her husband’s decision, full SBP coverage would have been  established
on her behalf.  There is no evidence of  error  or  injustice  and  no
basis in law to provide relief; therefore, DPPTR  strongly  recommends
the request be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit B.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and  states  that  the  AF
Form 694 presented as evidence is signed,  but  she  does  not  recall
signing such a form waiving her rights to survivor benefits.  She does
not recall having a counselor inform  her  of  the  options  available
under the SBP.  Part VIII - Spousal Notification of the AF Form 694 is
not completed and no counselor’s name or phone number is  given.   The
dates all seem a bit  odd,  with  none  matching.   Her  late  husband
appeared to have dated the form 14 Jan 97, and a  witness  (illegible)
signed the front with a 12 Mar 97 date indicated.  The  date  next  to
the spousal signature on the second page of the form  reads  3 Mar  97
and does not match  the  spousal  signature  style  nor  that  of  the
witness.  The spousal signature could have been forged, or, if  signed
by her, was done under  severe  duress,  but  she  honestly  does  not
remember signing away  her  rights  to  survivor  benefits  nor  being
counseled.  Her  late  husband’s  drinking  and  subsequent  abhorrent
behavior marked her children’s and her life in  ways  that  will  stay
with them always.  Her husband died at the age of 52 of liver  failure
and alcoholic liver disease.  Her late  husband’s  alcoholism,  caused
possibly by his wanting to forget his two tours  in  Vietnam  and  the
loss  of  friends  and  atrocities  he  experienced  during  the  war,
inevitably made for some extremely stressful times at home.

Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

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 military records  and  DFAS  retired
pay records should show that she is entitled to receive SBP  payments.
Her contentions  are  duly  noted;  however,  we  do  not  find  these
assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to  override
the rationale provided by the Air Force.  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.
Therefore, we find no  compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the
relief sought.

4.    The applicant’s case is adequately documented  and  it  has  not
been shown that a personal appearance, with or without  counsel,  will
add to our understanding of the  issue(s)  involved.   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 20 April 2000, under the provisions of Air  Force
Instruction 36-2603:

                  Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Mike Novel, Member
                  Ms. Kathy L.  Boockholdt, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Aug 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPTR, dated 9 Apr 99.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 Apr 99.
     Exhibit D.  Letter fr applicant, dated 27 Jun 99.




                                   BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9802505

    Original file (9802505.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and states that the AF Form 694 presented as evidence is signed, but she does not recall signing such a form waiving her rights to survivor benefits. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9801377

    Original file (9801377.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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. ...

  • 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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-00319

    Original file (BC-2003-00319.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR states the applicant submitted a notarized letter alleging the signature on the copy of an AF Form 1267, Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) Notification and Concurrence, is not her signature and that she did sign an SBP election form for annuity for 55 percent of the servicemember’s retired pay. If the servicemember had elected full spouse coverage, the applicant’s signature would not have been...

  • 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 | CY2004 | BC-2003-03065

    Original file (BC-2003-03065.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was briefed that SBP costs would be 50% of his retirement pay, which they agonized over before declining SBP coverage. If they were correctly informed during their initial briefing, they would have elected to participate in the program and she would have never signed the form declining coverage. Further, there is no record the member submitted an election under PL 105-261.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9900488

    Original file (9900488.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 12 Jun 73, the deceased member submitted an SBP election statement during the initial enrollment period, declining coverage. Public Law (PL) 92-425, which established SBP on 21 Sep 72, authorized an 18-month enrollment period for retired members to elect SBP coverage. 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 show that he elected SBP coverage for her.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9801318

    Original file (9801318.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The decedent and the applicant married on 4 Jun 79 and coverage and premiums were reinstated on the first anniversary of their marriage. As a result of the CG’s decision, the AFBCMR advised the applicant by letter dated 17 Sep 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 D). Notwithstanding her on again/off again marriage to the...

  • 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 | CY2002 | 0200874

    Original file (0200874.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR states Public Law (PL) 99-145, established on 8 Nov 85, required as of 1 Mar 86 spousal concurrence of the SBP election, if the election was providing less than maximum spouse coverage. He declined SBP coverage prior to his 1 Apr 88 retirement. There is no evidence that the servicemember made an election for spouse coverage during either open enrollment period.