RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00874
INDEX CODE:137.00
APPLICANT (Deceased) COUNSEL: None
SSN HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her late-husband’s records be corrected to entitle her to a Survivor
Benefit Plan (SBP) annuity.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She had only been married for three months when her husband retired.
She was never informed of any options regarding SBP. Just recently
she was made aware of SBP upon her husband's death. The applicant
does not recall signing any documents and she was not aware of the
government newsletter until about one-year ago. She was asked to sign
a form without any explanation.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the
deceased member’s military records, are contained in the letter
prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force attached at
Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPTR states Public Law (PL) 99-145, established on 8 Nov
85, required as of 1 Mar 86 spousal concurrence of the SBP election,
if the election was providing less than maximum spouse coverage. If a
spouse nonconcurred on the SBP election, coverage would be established
on the spouse's behalf by operation of law. If the servicemember
declined to elect coverage for an eligible
spouse, coverage cannot be established in the future except during an
authorized open enrollment period.
The servicemember and the applicant were married on 13 Nov 87. He
declined SBP coverage prior to his 1 Apr 88 retirement. The records
maintained by the Finance center indicate the applicant concurred with
the servicemember's election. The servicemember had the opportunity
during two open enrollments to elect coverage. The open enrollments
were authorized by PLs 101-89 (1 Apr 92 - 31 Mar 93), and 105-261 (1
Mar 99 - 29 Feb 00). Each servicemember was notified by direct mail
of the opportunity to enroll during the open enrollment periods. Also
the Afterburner, USAF News for Retired Personnel, published during
these timeframes was forwarded to the servicemember's address
maintained by the finance center. The Afterburner contained points of
contacts to obtain additional information regarding SBP. There is no
evidence that the servicemember made an election for spouse coverage
during either open enrollment period. The servicemember died on 20
Jan 02. Based on the information provided and the servicemember's
records, DPPTR recommends denying the requested relief.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 10 May 02, for review and response. As of this date, no
response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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 the 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
records maintained by the Finance Center have an annotation indicating
the applicant concurred with the servicemember's decision to decline
coverage under SBP. The servicemember could have elected spouse
coverage for the applicant during the 1 Apr 92 - 31 Mar 93 or 1 Mar 00
- 29 Feb 00 open enrollments but failed to do so. 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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
00874 in Executive Session 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 20 Feb 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPTR, dated 24 Apr 02.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 May 02.
BARBARA A. WESTGATE
Chair
On 12 Jun 73, the deceased member submitted an SBP election statement during the initial enrollment period, declining coverage. Public Law (PL) 92-425, which established SBP on 21 Sep 72, authorized an 18-month enrollment period for retired members to elect SBP coverage. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that her late husband’s records should be corrected to show that he elected SBP coverage for her.
There were no provisions in the law at that time to notify spouses if the servicemember did not elect coverage. There is no evidence that the servicemember elected SBP during any of the authorized open enrollments. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Apr 02.
Even though the applicant and the decedent were married at the time of his retirement (1 Apr 91), records indicate that the applicant’s valid concurrence in the decedent’s SBP election was obtained prior to his retirement. Subsequently, the decedent was eligible to provide coverage for the applicant during two SBP open enrollment periods authorized by Public Laws (PLs) 101-189 and 105-126 (1 Apr 92 – 31 Mar 93 and 1 Mar 99 – 29 Feb 00, respectively). We took notice of the applicant's...
The evidence also establishes the deceased member’s efforts to provide the applicant with all the benefits she was entitled to as the spouse of a retired service member. Microfiche records verify SBP enrollment packets and newsletters were mailed to the address the decedent provided to the finance center during the 1981-1982 and 1992-1993 open enrollment periods. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01037
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR states Public Law (PL) 99-145, established on 8 November 1985, required as of 1 March 1986 spousal concurrence of the SBP election, if the election was providing less than maximum spouse coverage. According to the Defense Finance and Service - Cleveland Center (DAFS- CL) the servicemember elected full spouse and child coverage under SBP, but later submitted a corrected election to decline SBP...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-00667
At the very least the retiree should be given the opportunity to accept or decline further SBP enrollment when the new spouse is enrolled in DEERS. In support of his appeal, the applicant submitted a letter from his spouse, his retiree account statements (dated 11 and 24 January 2002), and a letter from DFAS. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: Through his member of Congress, applicant provided a personal statement,...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Retiree Services Branch, AFPC/DPPTR, reviewed this application and states Public Law (PL) 99-145 (8 Nov 85 but effective 1 Mar 86) requires a spouse’s written concurrence be obtained whenever a married retiree elects less than full spouse SBP coverage. DPPTR further states that the applicant’s claim that her husband declined SBP coverage because he believed his retired pay would be offset by...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00419
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Retiree Services Branch, AFPC/DPPTR, reviewed this application and states Public Law (PL) 99-145 (8 Nov 85 but effective 1 Mar 86) requires a spouse’s written concurrence be obtained whenever a married retiree elects less than full spouse SBP coverage. DPPTR further states that the applicant’s claim that her husband declined SBP coverage because he believed his retired pay would be offset by...
At the very least the retiree should be given the opportunity to accept or decline further SBP enrollment when the new spouse is enrolled in DEERS. In support of his appeal, the applicant submitted a letter from his spouse, his retiree account statements (dated 11 and 24 January 2002), and a letter from DFAS. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: Through his member of Congress, applicant provided a personal statement,...
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...