ADDENDUM TO
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01377
            INDEX CODE:  137.04

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF CASE:

In an application dated 12 May  1998,  the  applicant,  widow  of  the
service member, requested that his records be corrected to  show  that
he elected maximum spouse coverage under  the  Survivor  Benefit  Plan
(SBP) thereby entitling her to an annuity.

On 25 May 1999,  the  Board  considered  and  denied  the  applicant’s
request for corrective  action  that  would  entitle  her  to  an  SBP
annuity.   The  Board  noted  the  applicant’s  allegation  that   her
signature on the AF Form 694, Data for Payment of  Retired  Air  Force
Personnel,  was  forged.   However,  the  Board  found  no  persuasive
evidence that the applicant did not sign the  document.   Furthermore,
the Board noted that the applicant was offered and agreed  to  take  a
polygraph examination concerning this matter and  her  responses  were
found to be deceptive.  In addition, a  handwriting  analysis  of  the
applicant’s signature was inconclusive.  As a result, the Board agreed
with the recommendation of the Air Force  and  adopted  the  rationale
expressed as the basis for its decision that the applicant had  failed
to sustain her burden  that  she  had  suffered  either  an  error  or
injustice.  A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings  is  attached
at Exhibit F (includes Exhibits A-E).

Applicant submitted additional  information,  dated  31  August  2000,
through her senator’s office, and  requested  reconsideration  of  her
application (Exhibit G).  The applicant essentially contends that  the
Air Force was responsible for documentation, effective record keeping,
as well as the validity of the documentation which would show that she
was fully informed and concurred with her husband’s  election  to  not
elect SBP spouse coverage.  To  date,  the  Air  Force  is  unable  to
validate any of the documentation used to deny her an  entitlement  to
SBP.

The applicant’s case has been  reopened  at  this  time  for  possible
reconsideration.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, General Law  Division,  AF/JAG,  reviewed  the  applicant’s
contentions and  stated  that  they  agree  with  the  applicant  that
congressional intent is clear that spouses should not be
“disenfranchised” from their SBP benefits without  their  concurrence.
The Air Force has imposed numerous  procedural  safeguards  to  insure
that a spouse’s concurrence in waiving SBP
is valid.  Unfortunately, it appears that the Air Force did not follow
its  own  procedures  which  made  it  possible  to  accept  a  forged
signature.  The Air Force may rely on the  presumption  of  regularity
concerning its records and consequently, the applicant has the  burden
to prove otherwise.  However, in this case,  the  applicant  has  been
prevented from doing so because of the  poor  quality  of  the  record
copies maintained by the Air Force.  The Air  Force’s  deviation  from
the normal practice takes  away  the  presumption  of  regularity  and
provided the opportunity for  a  forgery  to  occur.   Similarly,  the
record  keeping  process  has  taken  away  the  opportunity  for  the
applicant to prove her  claim  that  her  signature  was  forged.   In
addition, due to the poor quality of the Air Force record, it has  not
been possible to identify or locate either of the two  “witnesses”  to
the signature in question.  The Chief states that given the  state  of
evidence and the applicant’s assertion that the signature is not hers,
they believe the applicant has provided sufficient evidence  to  raise
significant doubt as to the authenticity of the signature such that it
could constitute as injustice within the meaning of the statute.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant concurs with the recommendation from the Chief,  General
Law Division, and agrees that she is entitled to  full  SBP  benefits,
with payments beginning immediately  and  retroactive  to  24  October
1997, the date of her husband’s death.

Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit J.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

l.  In our original decision, we concluded that there was insufficient
evidence to warrant favorable action on the applicant’s  request  that
her late husband’s records  be  corrected  to  show  that  he  elected
maximum spouse  coverage  under  the  SBP.   The  applicant’s  instant
submission has been carefully reviewed and again we find the  evidence
provided and of record insufficient  to  warrant  a  reversal  of  the
original decision.  Applicant once again alleges that the signature on
the form waiving her right to SBP is  a  forgery.   In  addition,  she
contends  that  the  Air  Force  was  responsible  for  documentation,
effective record keeping as well as the validity of the  documentation
which would show that she was fully informed and  concurred  with  her
husband’s election to not elect  SBP  spouse  coverage.   She  further
asserts that, to date, the Air Force is unable to validate any of  the
documentation used to deny her an entitlement to SBP.

2.  HQ USAF/JAG has indicated that the Air Force ordinarily  may  rely
on  the  presumption  of  regularity  concerning   its   records   and
consequently, the applicant has the burden  to  prove  otherwise.   In
this case, however, JAG believes that the applicant has been prevented
from doing so.  Given the state of the evidence  and  the  applicant’s
assertion that the signature is not hers, HQ  USAF/JAG  believes  that
the applicant has provided sufficient evidence  to  raise  significant
doubt as to the authenticity of  the  signature  such  that  it  could
constitute an injustice within the meaning of the statute.

3  We  do  not  agree.   Other  than  the  applicant’s  uncorroborated
assertions, we have no evidence to indicate that the Air Force did not
notify the applicant that her deceased spouse elected  less  than  the
maximum annuity under the SBP.  Nor can it  be  established  that  the
applicant’s signature on the form waiving her right  to  the  SBP  was
forged as alleged.  Granted, the Air Force’s record  keeping  practice
may have precluded the applicant from establishing whether or not  her
signature was forged through a handwriting analysis.   However,  there
is no evidence to show that the  Air  Force’s  decision  to  microfilm
these types of records as opposed to maintaining the original lacked a
rational basis or was contrary to prevailing Air Force policy.  Absent
substantive evidence to the contrary, the Air  Force  is  presumed  to
have acted properly.

4.  We are not unsympathetic to the applicant’s plight and applaud the
extraordinary efforts on her part to support her case.  On  the  other
hand, in fairness to the system, our decision must  be  based  on  the
preponderance of the  evidence  submitted  and  of  record.   In  this
regard, our staff  attempted  to  help  the  applicant  establish  her
allegation that her waiver of her entitlement to SBP  benefits  was  a
forgery by asking the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) to obtain
an analysis  of  the  applicant’s  handwriting  on  the  waiver  form.
However, in connection with this  matter,  the  applicant  voluntarily
underwent a polygraph examination  that  indicated  deception  on  her
part.  Not accepting this examination as dispositive of the merits  of
the applicant’s case, we chose to offer her an opportunity  to  appear
before us at a formal hearing and testify under oath  or  affirmation.
Her testimony under oath or affirmation could have shed some light  on
some of the most troublesome aspects  of  this  case;  i.e.,  how  her
deceased husband could have obtained sole  possession  of  the  waiver
form and obtained the signatures of people purporting to  witness  her
signature without the Air Force’s knowledge; how she could be  totally
unaware of the amount of her deceased husband’s retired  pay  and  why
she felt no obligation at anytime to verify her eligibility for an SBP
annuity in the event of her spouse’s demise.   However,  she  declined
our offer to testify in person in support of her case.  This action is
somewhat strange because she had asked for a  personal  appearance  in
her original submission.  The refusal to appear before us and  testify
under oath or affirmation also militates against resolving the benefit
of any doubt in her favor.

5.  In view of all of the  circumstances  of  this  case  and  in  the
absence of a showing that the applicant  has  a  legal  right  to  the
relief sought, we believe that she has failed to sustain her burden of
establishing  the  existence  of  either  an  error  or  an  injustice
warranting favorable action on her  request.   Therefore,  it  is  our
decision that her application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

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 22 Jan 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Chair
      Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Member
      Mr. Mike Novel, Member

The following additional documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit F.  Record of Proceedings, dated 1 Jul 99, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, applicant, dated 31 Aug 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, HQ USAF/JAG, dated 12 Oct 00.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 18 Oct 00.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, applicant, dated 18 Oct 00.




                                   BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                   Chair