RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01086
INDEX CODE 137.04
XXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be allowed to terminate spouse and child Survivor Benefit Plan
(SBP) coverage effective the date of his retirement and he be
reimbursed for these SBP premiums.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was automatically entered into the SBP at the highest rate as a
result of a poor briefing given by an airman who indicated she was not
familiar with the program. The airman told him the Department of
Veterans Affairs (DVA) would contact him and take care of it after he
retired. Two years after he retired, he discovered he could terminate
coverage, which he did.
He provides a statement from the Scott AFB, IL, SBP NCOIC, who
indicates he could not find an SBP election form on the applicant and
is unable to verify whether or not the applicant was briefed on SBP
prior to retirement.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
When a member fails to complete a valid SBP election prior to
retirement, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service - Cleveland
Center (DFAS-CL) automatically establishes coverage for all the
retiree’s eligible beneficiaries by operation of law.
When the applicant retired effective 1 Feb 97, he had a wife and an
eligible child. Since DFAS-CL did not receive an SBP election form,
spouse and child coverage, based on full retired pay, was established
to comply with the law.
Effective 17 May 98, Public Law (PL) 105-85 authorizes members a one-
year period beginning the 25th month following retirement to terminate
SBP coverage with the spouse’s written concurrence. On 19 Apr 99, the
applicant requested his SBP coverage be terminated under the
disenrollment provision authorized by PL 105-95. Disenrollment became
effective 1 May 99 and SBP coverage and premiums ceased at that time.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Retiree Activities Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPTR, advises that the
applicant’s SBP coverage was established by DFAS-CL in accordance with
the law, but could have been corrected administratively at the time of
the alleged error had he made a timely inquiry and provided evidence
of error. Denial is recommended.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant contends he was not aware he had the opportunity to
correct his record until his private insurance advisor advised him
during his annual finance review. The delay in providing his wife’s
notarized concurrence, which he now submits, was caused by her
relocation with her job and misplacement of paperwork. Had they
received a proper briefing, they would have made an election of
benefits based on facts and not been automatically enrolled by DFAS-
CL.
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. After a thorough
review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we
are not persuaded that his participation in the SBP should be
terminated effective on his retirement date. The applicant’s
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. Since
DFAS-CL received no documents from him regarding his SBP elections,
coverage was established in accordance with the law. His submission
does not substantiate that he was, in fact, miscounseled prior to his
retirement nor is his reason for his delay sufficiently convincing to
warrant relief. We therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air
Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision
that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered
either an error or an injustice. In view of the above and absent
persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought.
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 21 March 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Member
Mr. Mike Noval, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Apr 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPTR, dated 13 Dec 99.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 Dec 99.
Exhibit E. Applicant's Response, dated 20 Dec 99, w/atch.
BARBARA A. WESTGATE
Panel Chair
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Retired Pay Operations, DFAS-CL/FRAB, stated that the Jul-Aug and Nov-Dec 1980 issues of the Afterburner contained information regarding disenrollment from SBP upon being rated totally disabled by the VA for a period of ten years. The applicant has presented no information that he did not receive these issues of the Afterburner. Furthermore, the 81-82 SBP open enrollment information package,...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04100
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Public Law (PL) 99-145 requires spouses of married servicemembers to concur in writing prior to the servicemember’s retirement, in the SBP election that provides less than full spouse coverage. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR states the applicant contends the finance center did not have her husband’s information to process an election. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02108
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR states that Public Law (PL) 99-145 requires spouses of married servicemembers to concur in writing, prior to the servicemember’s retirement, in SBP elections that provide less than full spouse coverage. DPPTR further states SBP elections can not be arbitrarily terminated as long there are eligible beneficiaries; however, PL 105-85, effective 18 November 1997, authorized retired servicemembers...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03820
On 11 March 1999, the applicant submitted a request to terminate his SBP coverage under the provisions of PL 105-85. PL 108-375 authorized an open enrollment period from 1 October 2005 through 30 September 2006 to enroll in SBP, but the law stipulates that servicemembers who terminated coverage under the provisions of PL 105-85 can not renter the program. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence...
He was advised that his wife’s SBP annuity would be offset by DIC. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Prior to his disability retirement, effective 20 Jul 68, the applicant made an election under the RSFPP. However, his surviving spouse receives a refund of SBP premiums resulting from the reduction to the SBP annuity after the VA awards DIC.
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 advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant/counsel for review and response (Exhibit D). The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision.
Making his son his SBP beneficiary negates his state care eligibility because he would be getting a regular monthly income which exceeds their limitations. However, in view of the fact that applicant’s incapacitated son’s medical care will be stopped if his son receives SBP premiums, we believe that it would be unjust to deny the relief requested. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Air Force stated that the applicant was married and elected child only SBP coverage based on full retired pay prior to his 12 May 83 disability retirement. If a member withdraws under this provision, there is no immediate refund of premiums; however, applicable spouse premiums paid by the member can be refunded to the spouse following the member’s death. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01425
DPPRT states that Public Law (PL) 99-145 requires spouses of married servicemembers to concur in writing, prior to the servicemember’s retirement, in SBP elections that provide less than full spouse coverage. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been...