ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01118
INDEX CODE: 137.00, 137.01
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The applicant is the widow of a former service member, who requests that
she be awarded a portion of her late husband’s retired pay.
In the reconsideration request, the applicant’s physician provided a
statement concerning her (applicant’s) medical condition during the period
in question.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 5 Aug 93, the former member began drawing Air Force Reserve retired pay
until his death on 18 Jul 98. The former member did not make a Reserve
Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP) election when he completed 20 years
of service and he also declined an SBP election at age 60. The member’s
spouse indicated her concurrence with his decision to decline participation
in SBP on 11 Apr 93.
A similar appeal was considered and denied by the Board on 25 Sep 01. For
an accounting of the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see
the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit F.
On 28 Nov 01, the applicant’s physician submitted a request for
reconsideration, contending that the applicant was unable to make a
rational choice regarding the SBP declination. To support this assertion,
the applicant’s physician provided a personal statement. The complete
submission is at Exhibit G.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
After again reviewing this application and the evidence provided in support
of the appeal, we remain unpersuaded that a revision of the earlier
determination in this case is warranted. We note that the former member
had two opportunities to enroll in the SBP program, when he completed 20
years of service and again when he reached the age of 60, but chose not to.
We noted the statement from applicant’s physician who treated her in
December 1995 and January 1996 when she was admitted to the hospital.
Notwithstanding the fact that the applicant has provided documentation that
indicates she has received treatment for a mental illness, sufficient
evidence has not been provided which would lead us to believe that she was
incapable of understanding the significance of her late husband’s decision
in 1993. Therefore, in the absence of evidence that the applicant has been
a victim of an error or injustice, 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 19 February 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit F. Record of Proceedings, dated 4 Oct 01,
with Exhibits.
Exhibit G. Physician’s Letter, dated 28 Nov 01, with
attachments.
DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
Panel Chair
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Director of Personnel Program Management, HQ ARPC/DPP, stated that the member began drawing Air Force Reserve retired pay effective 5 Aug 93, his 60th birthday, until his death on 18 Jul 98. A complete copy of this evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and...
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...
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...
They stated the laws controlling the SBP preclude a married member, who declined spouse coverage at the time of retirement, from providing SBP former spouse coverage following divorce unless Congress authorizes an open enrollment. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit B. 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 office of primary responsibility and adopt...
Even though the applicant and the decedent were married at the time of his retirement (1 Apr 91), records indicate that the applicant’s valid concurrence in the decedent’s SBP election was obtained prior to his retirement. Subsequently, the decedent was eligible to provide coverage for the applicant during two SBP open enrollment periods authorized by Public Laws (PLs) 101-189 and 105-126 (1 Apr 92 – 31 Mar 93 and 1 Mar 99 – 29 Feb 00, respectively). We took notice of the applicant's...
_________________________________________________________________ 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 RSFPP election form provided by the applicant reflects he elected spouse and child coverage with Option 4. However, if the Board recommends granting the request, the decedent’s record should be corrected to show RSFPP spouse and child coverage based on one-half of his retired pay was established effective 1 June 1970. We therefore agree with the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that her late husband’s intent not to extend...
The separation agreement (incorporated into the divorce decree) ordered the former member to elect former spouse coverage at the earliest time possible, but the applicant failed to submit a deemed election request within the required time limit. A summary of the evidence considered and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board is set forth in the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit E. The applicant’s 12 October 2001 request for reconsideration of her application was denied by the...
They state that the law controlling the SBP allows a retired member to convert from spouse to former spouse coverage within one year following divorce. 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 office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Exhibit B.
However, it is noted that it is the responsibility of the retiring service member to elect the best coverage for his family; and that the spouse has the right to concur or nonconcur in the service member's decision in electing SBP. DPPTR, based on the evidence provided, recommends the request be denied. While we can sympathize with the applicant’s loss of her son and the resulting anguish she was suffering at the time she completed the SBP notification and concurrence form, AF Form 1267,...