Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201470
Original file (0201470.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01470
            INDEX CODE:137.00

      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  None

      SSN   HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be allowed to change his Reserve Component  Survivor  Benefit  Plan
(RCSBP) coverage from Option A to Option C.

_________________________________________________________________

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.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPS states the applicant  was  notified  of  his  eligibility  to
participate in the RCSBP in Mar 94.  His election package  was  mailed
to him by certified mail and was signed for by his wife on 5  Mar  94.
There was no evidence that the applicant  made  an  election  at  that
time.  The applicant was automatically enrolled in Option A,  Deferred
election until age  60  at  the  end  of  the  90-day  suspense.   The
applicant  was  notified  of the 1 Mar 99 to 29 Feb 00 open enrollment
for RCSBP.  The notification was mailed to his home address  from  the
master listing maintained by HQ ARPC.  The applicant failed  to  elect
RCSBP coverage when he had the opportunities to do so.  He  will  have
another opportunity to
elect RCSBP when he reaches age 60.  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:

The applicant states the RCSBP package did not clearly identify he had
a 90-day suspense.  He did not open the letter until the  end  of  May
94.  It was only then that he realized he  had  deadline  to  make  an
election.  He elected Option C on 31 May 94 and returned  the  package
by first class mail before the deadline.  He did not make an  election
during open enrollment  season  because  he  thought  he  already  had
coverage under the election he made in 1994.

Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

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 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 Board
notes the applicant did not elect RCSBP coverage within  the  required
timeframe and was automatically  enrolled  under  Option  A.   He  had
another opportunity to elect RCSBP coverage during an authorized  open
season enrollment, but failed to do so.  The applicant was notified on
two occasions of his eligibility to enroll in RCSBP but did not  elect
coverage either  time.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  substantial
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-
01470 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 11 Apr 02, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Letter, HQ ARPC/DPS, dated 3 Jul 02, w/atchs.
      Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jul 02.
      Exhibit D. Applicant's Response, dated 2 Aug 02.




                             BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                             Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-00516

    Original file (BC-2002-00516.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 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200516

    Original file (0200516.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 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0103523

    Original file (0103523.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    There was no evidence that the service member made an election at that time. Therefore, based on the evidence provided they recommend denying the applicant’s request. _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201652

    Original file (0201652.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2002-01652.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 0103466

    Original file (0103466.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00593

    Original file (BC-2004-00593.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    While he was notified by mail of this opportunity, no evidence exists to show he made an election. DPS states the member had two opportunities to elect the coverage he felt he needed at those times. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | 0201784

    Original file (0201784.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ 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

    Original file (BC-2003-02455.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY1998 | 9801709

    Original file (9801709.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her deceased husband planned to take his Air Force retirement at age 60. 6 98-01709 On 28 December 1981, ARPC/DPAAR notified the spouse of the deceased member that an RCSBP election had not been received by the deadline and informed her that RCSBP coverage was not in effect and no further election could be made until the member reached age 60. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion...