RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02466
INDEX CODE: 137.01
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His spouse be added to his Survivor’s Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He retired in 1999 as an unmarried E-8 with two children under the age of
18, which were enrolled in the SBP program. He was not briefed at the time
of his retirement of the requirement to add his spouse within the specified
time limitation.
In support of his request applicant provided his marriage license and
letters associated with his request to enroll his spouse in the SBP
program. His complete submission, with attachments, 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 recommends the applicant’s request be denied. DPPTR states that
his claim that he was not properly briefed cannot be confirmed or denied.
He failed to submit a valid request as permitted by law. When he wrote his
letter to the finance center he did not inquire or request additional
information about extending SBP coverage to his spouse. His option to
provide SBP coverage within the first year of marriage remained executable
until 31 Dec 00. He could have submitted an election during the 1999 to
2000 open enrollment, but did not. He was asked to provide a statement to
show his willingness to repay back premiums if his application were
approved, but he has not responded to their request. It would be contrary
to the letter and intent of the law as well as inequitable to grant this
application (see Exhibit B).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant responded and provided a statement that he is willing to pay back
premiums if his request is approved. He asks the Board to consider the
number of years since his retirement briefing and his confusion on
obtaining coverage for his spouse.
In further support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
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 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. This Board’s power is limited to what is allowed by the
existing law. In this respect, the law governing the SBP provides that a
member who is unmarried at the time of his retirement may elect coverage
for a newly acquired spouse. However, the election must be made before the
first anniversary of the marriage. The first anniversary of his marriage
was 31 December 2000. We see no evidence which would lead us to believe
that he made any attempt to provide SBP coverage for his spouse until July
2001. 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 Docket Number 01-02466 in
Executive Session on 19 Feb02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. David C. VanGasbeck, Panel Chair
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Aug 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPPTR, dated 29 Oct 01.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Nov 01.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Nov 01, w/atch.
DAVID C. VANGASBECK
Panel Chair
___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Air Force stated that the applicant elected child only SBP coverage based on full retired pay prior to his 1 Mar 73 retirement. They stated that a member who fails to provide SBP coverage for an eligible spouse at the time of retirement may not later elect coverage for that person, or another person of the same category, unless Congress authorizes an open enrollment. ...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01773
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR states a servicemember, who is unmarried at retirement and later marries may elect coverage for a newly acquired spouse, as long as the election is made before the first anniversary of the marriage. Although the member contends he submitted a request to change his beneficiary, the request was submitted after the one-year period provided by law. We took notice of the applicant’s complete...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03905
________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Retiree Services Branch, AFPC/DPPTR, reviewed this application and recommended denial stating there is no evidence of Air Force error or injustice. The member’s claim that he was not briefed on the one-year time period to add a spouse should he marry after retirement is without merit. DPPTR states that if the Board’s decision is to grant relief, the member’s record should be corrected to show that on...
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. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02546
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was unaware of the time constraint of one year from the date of his marriage to select an SBP for his wife. The applicant and his spouse married on 31 May 1997; however, he failed to request SBP coverage for her within the first year of their marriage. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02699
DPPTR states that a member, who is unmarried at retirement, may elect coverage for a spouse acquired after retiring; however, the election must be made before the first anniversary of the marriage. On 15 October 2000, the applicant requested to provide SBP coverage for his spouse after he married; however, his request was not made before the required one-year anniversary date of that marriage. Exhibit B.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2001-01891A
The applicant remarried on 9 September 1992, but failed to inform the Finance Center that he did not want to extend SBP coverage before the first anniversary of his marriage. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s request, HQ AFPC/DPPTR, reviewed the applicant’s most recent submission. With regard to terminating the reinstated SBP coverage, Public...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03448
Issues of the Afterburner are mailed to the correspondence address each retiree provides to the finance center. It is each member’s responsibility to notify DFAS-CL of their current correspondence address, regardless of their pay status. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 02-03448 in Executive Session on 21 January 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Mr. David C. VanGasbeck,Panel Chair Ms....
_________________________________________________________________ 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...