RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01737
INDEX CODE: 137.00
APPLICANT (Deceased) COUNSEL: Veterans Service
Center
SSN HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her late-husband’s records be corrected to entitle her to a Survivor
Benefit Plan (SBP) annuity.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Her husband submitted a change in beneficiary request in October 2000
and it was not properly documented in all his pertinent records. The
beneficiary request was forwarded to the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service (DFAS) in Cleveland and was not recorded properly.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The service member was married to M. and declined SBP coverage prior
to his retirement in 1973. His pay records reflect during an open
enrollment (1 Oct 81 - 30 Sep 82), he elected spouse only coverage
based on a reduced level of retired pay. The service member and M.
were divorced on 12 Nov 93 and the member was ordered to maintain the
SBP annuity for M. On 7 Jan 94, DFAS received a copy of the divorce
decree and SBP premiums were retroactively suspended. 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. The
service member died on 11 Jan 01. 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 applicant applied for
the SBP annuity and provided payment for the unpaid premiums
retroactive to Oct 95. The former spouse's request for the SBP
annuity was approved 9 May 01, however, her annuity payment was
suppressed pending recovery of the cost debt
retroactive to Dec 93. The applicant was refunded the monies she
provided for unpaid premiums on 4 Jun 01.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Retiree Services Branch, AFPC/DPPTR, reviewed this
application and states there is no evidence that the service member
attempted to establish SBP coverage for the applicant within the first
year of marriage. The designation beneficiary form the applicant
refers to is the designation form to establish a beneficiary for the
service member's unpaid retired pay upon his death. The law governing
SBP does not provide payment of an annuity to both a widow and a
surviving former spouse. To approve the applicant's request would
deny the former spouse a benefit the service member agreed to provide.
Based on the evidence provided, DPPPTR recommends the applicant's
request be denied.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant
on 27 Jul 01 for review and response within 30 days. As of this date,
no response has been received by this office. On 5 Aug 01, the
applicant submitted a letter stating that she supplied around the
clock care for her husband and she needs help to pay his medical bills
(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. 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 and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that
the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. There
was no evidence submitted to substantiate that the service member
attempted to establish SBP coverage on the applicant's behalf within
the first year of their marriage. The beneficiary form that the
applicant refers
to was to entitle her to the service member's unpaid retired pay, not
as a beneficiary to SBP. 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 25 September 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Jun 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPTR, dated 20 Jul 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 27 Jul 01.
Exhibit D. Applicant's Response, dated 5 Aug 01.
DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03271
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03271 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her former husband's records be corrected to show he filed a timely election for former spouse coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) and any SBP premium payments due be waived. ...
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
In this regard, we are constrained to note that the applicable statute (10 USC Section 1450(f)(3)(C)), time limit for request by former spouse, provides that “An election may not be deemed to have been made under subparagraph (A) in the case of any person unless the Secretary concerned receives a request from the former spouse of the person within one year of the date of the court order or filing involved.” Such a requirement permits a former spouse to circumvent the stipulations of a...
However, the law provides two mechanisms for changing spouse coverage to former spouse coverage, which must be exercised within the first year following divorce. If neither the member nor the former spouse requests the election change within the one-year eligibility period, former spouse coverage may not be established thereafter. The decedent and the applicant were married on 28 Dec 83; in Sep 85, the decedent notified the finance center of the change in his marital status and spouse...
At that time, RCSBP coverage and premiums were suspended. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR states that SBP spouse coverage is suspended when the spouse loses eligibility. 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 and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02770 INDEX CODE: 137.04 (DECEASED) COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) election be changed from spouse only coverage to spouse and children coverage, based on full retired pay. With respect to the question concerning the recoupment of premiums for spouse only...
The member and his current spouse married on 17 February 1996, but he failed to advise the finance center that he did not want to extend SBP coverage to his new wife before the first anniversary of their marriage (17 February 1997). A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 30 March...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01999
The member could have elected former spouse SBP coverage on the applicant’s behalf when he applied for commencement of his retired pay, but failed to do so. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 9 August 2002 for review and response within 30 days. After a thorough review of the evidence of...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01220
The applicant married on 1 September 2000, but he did not elect SBP coverage for his spouse within the first year following his marriage. There is no record that he submitted a request within the first year of marriage. If the Board’s decision is to grant relief, the applicant’s record should be corrected to show that on 31 August 2001 he elected to add his spouse to his child only coverage based on full-retired pay.
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...