RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01134
INDEX CODE:137.04
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His child-only Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage be changed to reflect
spouse-only coverage.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or unjust and
the evidence submitted in support of the appeal is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the
applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the
appropriate office of the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to
recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPTR, reviewed the application and recommends denial. DPPTR states
that on 5 Feb 01, applicant submitted an invalid request to add his spouse
to the SBP. He failed to submit a request to add his first spouse to the
SBP and failed to enroll her during the open enrollment season. Had he
done so, his current spouse would have been automatically eligible on the
first anniversary of their marriage (see Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 15 Jun 01, for review and response. 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. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however,
the Board majority agrees with the opinion and recommendation of the Air
Force office of primary responsibility and adopts their rationale as the
basis for their conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an
error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to
the contrary, the Board majority finds no compelling basis to recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice
and recommends the application be denied.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on 25 Sep 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of the application. Mr
Roj voted to grant the applicant’s request, but does not wish to submit a
minority report. The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Apr 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPTR, dated 1 Jun 01.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Jun 01.
DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
Panel Chair
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)
SUBJECT: AFBCMR Application of
I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members. A majority found that the applicant
had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommended
the case be denied. I concur with that finding and their conclusion that
relief is not warranted. Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that
the application be denied.
Please advise the applicant accordingly.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards
Agency
The service member can file an election change or the former spouse can request that the change be made on their behalf. DPPTR on 19 Apr 01, requested that the service member provide documents that are required to establish former spouse coverage--copy of his final divorce decree and a properly completed DD Form 2656-1, Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) Election Statement for Former Spouse Coverage. Should these completed documents be submitted, the Board would be willing to reconsider this case.
The service member can file an election change or the former spouse can request that the change be made on their behalf. DPPTR on 19 Apr 01, requested that the service member provide documents that are required to establish former spouse coverage--copy of his final divorce decree and a properly completed DD Form 2656-1, Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) Election Statement for Former Spouse Coverage. Should these completed documents be submitted, the Board would be willing to reconsider this case.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Retiree Services Branch, AFPC/DPPTR, reviewed the application and states the law in effect at the time the service member divorced the applicant did not have a provision to elect SBP coverage for a former spouse even if the divorce decree made a reference to the SBP. The service member did not elect coverage for his minor children at the time of his retirement. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MIBR,...
The service member and G. (the applicant) were married on 14 Sep 94; however, the service member did not notify DFAS of the change in his martial status nor did he request to establish coverage for his new spouse. On 21 Feb 01, the service member's former spouse (M.) submitted a request for correction of his military records to entitle her to an SBP annuity. The beneficiary form that the applicant refers to was to entitle her to the service member's unpaid retired pay, not as a beneficiary...
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPTR recommends the application be denied. At that time, spouse coverage was suspended and premiums deducted after the divorce were refunded to the member. DPPTR indicated that the law in...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant's wife submitted a letter stating if they had been counseled adequately they would have not chosen to resume SBP coverage. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 25 September 2001 under the provisions of AFI 36- 2603: Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01685
The member’s claim that his military records should state his spouse and one child was on his SBP on September 1998 is without merit. The available evidence indicates that the applicant did not elect SBP coverage for his spouse at the time of his retirement or for his current spouse during the 1999-2000 open enrollment period. Therefore, in the absence of substantive evidence to the contrary, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01599
It would be contrary to the letter and intent of the law, as well as inequitable, to grant this applicant an additional opportunity not afforded to other members similarly situated. 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 the conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ...
They stated that Public Law (PL) 92-425, which established the SBP, required the spouse to be notified when a member, who retired on or after 21 Sep 72, declined or elected less than maximum coverage. However, both requirements applied only to the spouse married to the member at the time of retirement. ___________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application AFBCMR Docket Number 01-02858 in Executive Session on 23...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01282
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant was unmarried and elected child only SBP coverage based on full retired pay prior to his 1 October 1992 retirement date. Records reflect the applicant and N--- married on 13 April 1993, but he failed to elect SBP coverage for her within the first year following their marriage. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the...