Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0102772
Original file (0102772.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02772
            INDEX NUMBER:  137.04
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her late ex-husband's records be  corrected  so  that  she  may  be
eligible for a Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuity.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reasons the applicant believes the records to be  in  error  or
unjust and the evidence submitted in support of the appeal  are  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 at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPTR reviewed this  application  and  recommended  denial.
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.  Former  spouse  coverage  made  pursuant  to  a
written agreement that  was  incorporated  in  the  divorce  decree
remains in effect unless the court order is modified.

The decedent established former  spouse  coverage  (for  his  first
former spouse) based on a voluntary written agreement  pursuant  to
their court  order  and  there  is  no  evidence  he  attempted  to
establish SBP coverage on the applicant’s behalf within  the  first
year of marriage, or  following  their  divorce.   To  approve  the
applicant’s request would deny a benefit that the  decedent  agreed
to provide to his former spouse from his first marriage.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded to the Air Force evaluation by letter, dated 14
November 2001.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

___________________________________________________________________

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.   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
AFBCMR   Docket   Number   01-02772   in   Executive   Session   on
23 April 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
      Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
      Mr. Roscoe Hinton Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Sep 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPTR, dated 29 Oct 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Nov 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 14 Nov 01,
                w/atchs.




                                   DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0101417

    Original file (0101417.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | 0202372

    Original file (0202372.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | 0202706

    Original file (0202706.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02424

    Original file (BC-2002-02424.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He incorrectly completed the DD Form 2656-1, Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) Election Statement for Former Spouse Coverage, and should have completed it to reflect former spouse coverage. On 1 Aug 02, they requested that the applicant provide a completed DD Form 2656-1, Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) Election Statement for Former Spouse Coverage, and his former spouse’s marriage certificate. The complete...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2002-02424

    Original file (BC-2002-02424.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He incorrectly completed the DD Form 2656-1, Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) Election Statement for Former Spouse Coverage, and should have completed it to reflect former spouse coverage. On 1 Aug 02, they requested that the applicant provide a completed DD Form 2656-1, Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) Election Statement for Former Spouse Coverage, and his former spouse’s marriage certificate. The complete...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0103365

    Original file (0103365.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The retiree may file an election change, or the former spouse may request the retiree be deemed to have made such a change on his or her behalf as long as legal documentation is provided that the member agreed or that the court ordered the member to establish former spouse coverage. On 4 Dec 01, it was requested that the member provide a completed DD Form 2656-1, SBP Election Statement for Former Spouse coverage, and an acknowledgement of debt statement. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0103538

    Original file (0103538.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ___________________________________________________________________ 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 at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPTR reviewed this application and recommended denial. In Jul 01, former spouse coverage was established...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0102858

    Original file (0102858.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9801875

    Original file (9801875.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    HQ AFPC/JA informally advised the AFBCMR Staff that unless the divorced party can prove, either in a court of the country in which the divorce was obtained or in a United States court, that the foreign divorce was not in compliance with the laws of the foreign country, the divorce cannot be voided. If legally married to the decedent at the time the POA was issued, the applicant should have been entitled to a dependent ID card. The Chief advises that, should the Board grant relief, approval...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0102075

    Original file (0102075.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...