RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-03523
INDEX CODE:137.00
APPLICANT (Deceased) COUNSEL: None
SSN HEARING DESIRED: Yes
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her husband's records be changed to reflect he elected to participate
in the Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Her husband told her on several occasions that if he died she would
receive his Air Force retirement to help raise their children (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.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ARPC/DPS states the service member was first notified of his
eligibility to participate in the RCSBP in Jul 93. His election
package was mailed to him by certified mail and was signed for by his
mother on 10 Jun 93. There was no evidence that the service member
made an election at that time. The service member was automatically
enrolled in Option A, deferred election until age 60 at the end of the
90-day suspense. HQ ARPC notified the service member of the 1 Mar 99
to 28 Feb 00 RCSBP open enrollment. The notification was mailed to
his home address from the open season master listing maintained by HQ
ARPC. The notification was not returned to ARPC as undeliverable.
There is no record that the service member made an election during the
open enrollment season. The service member failed to elect RCSBP
coverage when he was initially eligible and he also failed to elect
coverage during the open enrollment. It is unfortunate that the
service member died before electing coverage under the RCSBP. The
applicant is eligible for other benefits as the unremarried widow of a
retirement eligible service member. She is eligible to utilize the
Commissary, Base Exchange and other base services. As of 26 Jun 01
she was eligible to receive medical care under the Tricare program.
The applicant may be entitled to benefits under the Veterans
Administration (VA). ARPC/DPS recommends she contact the VA.
Therefore, based on the evidence provided they recommend denying the
applicant’s request.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 22 February 2002, for review and response. As of this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
law or regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
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
and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. The
service member was notified by certified mail in Jun 93, of his
eligibility to participate in RCSBP. The notification package was
signed for by his mother on 10 Jun 93. He did not elect coverage at
that time. The service member had another opportunity to elect RCSBP
coverage during an authorized open season enrollment, but failed to do
so. Therefore, it appears that the service member was notified on two
different occasions of his eligibility to enroll in RCSBP but did not
apparently choose to exercise his opportunity to elect coverage. The
applicant, as a widow of a retirement eligible member, apparently is
eligible for other benefits, such as the Commissary, Base Exchange and
Tricare. Also, the Board suggests she contact the Veterans
Administration to determine her possible eligibility for benefits. In
view of the foregoing and in the absence of substantial evidence to
the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the
relief sought in this application.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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 AFBCMR Docket Number 01-
03523 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 5 Dec 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, HQ ARPC/DPS, dated 12 Feb 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Feb 02.
DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02163
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPS states that the spouse of the former member is entitled to other benefits as the unremarried widow of a retirement eligible member. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The spouse of the former member states that a package was sent certified mail and signed for by...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-03751
A certified package notifying the servicemember of his eligibility to participate in RCSBP was sent to his home address and his wife signed for the package on 13 May 1994. ARPC has no record of receiving an election request from the servicemember. 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 its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not...
The Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP) information package sent to the former servicemember, when he was initially eligible to establish survivor coverage on the applicant’s behalf, specifically advised the member that his RCSBP election certificate had to be received by the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) within 90 days of receipt of the package at his home. A review of the evidence submitted does not reveal that the deceased member was provided inadequate information...
As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C). The applicant contends that he was never notified that if he did not elect RCSBP coverage within the required timeframe that his coverage would be automatically enrolled under Option A. The applicant was notified on two occasions of his eligibility to enroll in RCSBP but did not elect coverage either time.
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: Applicant’s counsel provided a response to the Air Force evaluation, which included another letter from the applicant, her son-in-law and a friend of the deceased military member. 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-2003-02455
There is no evidence he made an election at that time. The applicant was sent an open enrollment letter to his home address during the RCSBP open enrollment season, 1 March 1999 to 28 February 2000. During the RCSBP open enrollment season from 1 March 1999 to 28 February 2000, records indicate the applicant was notified.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03589
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant’s daughter, in a letter dated 19 August 2003, informed this office the applicant died on 26 January 2003. At the time the servicemember was eligible to elect coverage there was no requirement, either by policy or statute to notify a spouse if the servicemember made no election for coverage. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00045
ARPC has no record of receiving an election request from the servicemember. The applicant, as a widow of a retirement eligible servicemember, apparently is eligible for other benefits, such as the Commissary, Base Exchange and Tricare. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01017
In support of the application, the applicant submits a letter to her husband’s commander, the Air Reserve Personnel Center’s letter to her late husband, and her late husband’s death certificate. DPP states the former service member was required to make an RCSBP election within 90 days of receipt of notification; however, he did not make an election when eligible in 1990. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit...
The member remained eligible to make the election at age 60. 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 E. Letter, Applicant’s Congressman statement, dated 31 Jul 02.