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
________________________________________________________________ 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...
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. ...
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
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
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
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.
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.
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...
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...
_________________________________________________________________ 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.