Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0102466
Original file (0102466.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

                            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

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | 0202874

    Original file (0202874.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ___________________________________________________________________ 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. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0102112

    Original file (0102112.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2003-01773.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ 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

    Original file (BC-2003-03905.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ 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

    Original file (BC-2003-01599.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2002-02546.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ 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

    Original file (BC-2003-02699.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2001-01891A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2002-03448.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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....

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0101323

    Original file (0101323.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ 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...