RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00602
INDEX CODE: 137.03
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His record be changed to show he declined coverage in the Reserve
Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP).
_________________________________________________________________
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.
EXAMINER’S NOTE: ARPC’s records reflect applicant’s SBP election
certificate was received on 20 February 2002.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ARPC/DPS states that applicant was notified of his eligibility to
participate in the RCSBP when he was first eligible on 13
November 2001. The election package was sent by certified mail and
was signed for by the applicant on that day. There is no evidence he
declined coverage at that time. They further state that while they
sympathize with applicant, they do not believe an injustice has
occurred. Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request. A
complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 28 May 2002, a member of Congress submitted a statement in support
of applicant stating that due to the fact that applicant was deployed
for a considerable amount of time during the suspense period, he
believes that the two days should have been considered as a grace
period when the final decision was made denying his request for
correction.
A copy of Congressman’s letter, with attachment, is attached 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 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 Staff
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 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 on 16
August 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Chair
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Feb 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ARPC/DPS, dated 19 Apr 02, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 Apr 02.
Exhibit E. Congressman’s Letter, dated 28 May 02, w/atch.
BARBARA A. WESTGATE
Chair
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.
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01652
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.
He did not make an election during open enrollment season because he thought he already had coverage under the election he made in 1994. The Board notes the applicant did not elect RCSBP coverage within the required timeframe and was 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.
The ARPC/DPS evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ 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 within 30 days. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that relief should be granted. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-00516
_________________________________________________________________ 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 B. DPS states that both election packages were mailed to the address he had on file and neither was returned because of an erroneous address. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits...
_________________________________________________________________ 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 B. DPS states that both election packages were mailed to the address he had on file and neither was returned because of an erroneous address. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00387 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect that he elected Option C (Immediate Annuity), spouse and children, under the Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP). The ARPC/DPS evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-00555
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: At the time he received the RCSBP election package he did not know whether he was going to retire or not. _________________________________________________________________ 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 (Exhibit C). After a thorough...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00727 INDEX CODE 137.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her late husband's records be corrected so that she may be eligible for a Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuity. She feels she is entitled to any and all benefits regarding her spouse, as this is what he would have chosen had he not been...
Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of 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 Staff and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board...