RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03497
INDEX CODE: 137.01
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her deceased husband’s records be corrected to show that he elected to
participate in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuity.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She did not receive notification of her husband’s SBP election when he
retired. The applicant contends she is finding it difficult to live
on social security disability and believes that she should be entitled
to SBP after spending thirty-three (33) years with the former member.
In support of her request, applicant provided a notarized sworn
statement that she did not receive notification of his SBP election
when he retired; a copy of her husband’s AF Form 694, Data for Payment
of Retired Air Force Personnel, a copy of his
DD 214, Marriage Certificate, and her late husband's Certificate of
Death. Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Documents provided by the applicant establish that she and the member
were married on 6 November 1965. Defense Finance and Accounting
Service (DFAS) records indicate that the member declined SBP coverage
prior to his 1 September 1985 retirement. The applicant provided a
copy of the member’s election form completed on 20 August 1985 at
Nellis AFB, NV. The applicant’s signature, also dated 20 August 1985
is contained on the reverse of the form. The former member died on 17
July 1998.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPTR reviewed applicant’s request and recommends denial. The
U.S. Court of Claims has consistently ruled that widows who are not
given notice of their sponsor’s election are entitled to full SBP
coverage. In these cases, there were no records that the required
notice was given to the spouse. This applicant did not claim, nor is
there any indication her signature was forged. Furthermore, finance
center microfiche records created at the time of the member’s
retirement reflect she signed the AF Form 694, Data for Payment of
Retired Air Force Personnel. Nevertheless, the applicant has provided
a sworn statement that the required notice was never received. While
it is unfortunate the applicant is suffering from serious medical
conditions, she does not meet the criteria as a Barber widow. The
record shows that the member submitted a valid election to decline SBP
coverage and his spouse was properly notified of the options and
effects of the plan. The DPPTR evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant responded to the advisory and states that she never received
counseling on the SBP program from the Personal Affairs office. She
states that her husband may have completed the form on base, that she
has never discussed not receiving SBP benefits with anyone, and was
not informed on what she was signing. The applicant also states that
she was told by her husband to sign the form. The applicant’s
complete submission is at attachment D.
_________________________________________________________________
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 error or injustice. After a thorough review of the
evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded
that the deceased member’s records should be altered so that his
surviving spouse would be eligible to receive a SBP annuity.
Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these
assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override
the rationale provided by the Air Force. We therefore agree with the
recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as
the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain
her burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice. In
view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
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 Docket Number 02-03497
in Executive Session on 21 January 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. David C. VanGasbeck, Panel Chair
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Nov 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPTR, dated 27 Nov 02.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 May 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 19 Dec 02.
DAVID C. VANGASBECK
Panel Chair
On 22 Apr 02, DPPTR sent a letter to the applicant requesting that she provide a sworn, notarized statement in which she attested that she did not receive notification that her husband had declined SBP coverage at the time of his retirement and that she provide a statement acknowledging and understanding that, if her husband's records are changed, the unpaid contributions (approximately $27,660) will be collected from any annuity payment she would be entitled to receive. The...
Applicant alleges that her signature on AF Form 694, “Data for Payment of Retired Air Force Personnel,” the concurrence portion for an SBP election concurring with less than full spouse SBP coverage, is forged. Although it is unfortunate there is no original document for comparison with regard to the applicant’s signature, we found no persuasive evidence that she did not sign the document at the time of her late husband’s retirement which appears to be properly witnessed. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-00038
Public Law (PL) 92-425, which established the SBP on 21 September 1972, authorized an 18-month enrollment period for retired members to elect SBP coverage. There were no provisions in the laws during either of these open enrollment periods requiring the Services to notify a spouse if the member did not enroll. 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...
Public Law (PL) 92-425, which established the SBP on 21 September 1972, authorized an 18-month enrollment period for retired members to elect SBP coverage. There were no provisions in the laws during either of these open enrollment periods requiring the Services to notify a spouse if the member did not enroll. 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...
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, which is at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPTR states that in the past, DPPTR recommended favorable consideration in cases in which the widow petitioners claim they were not notified of their sponsor's SBP election and The Air Force had no evidence to refute their claims. The...
_________________________________________________________________ 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, which is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPTR states that in the past, DPPTR recommended favorable consideration in cases in which the widow...
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...
The service member and G. (the applicant) were married on 14 Sep 94; however, the service member did not notify DFAS of the change in his martial status nor did he request to establish coverage for his new spouse. On 21 Feb 01, the service member's former spouse (M.) submitted a request for correction of his military records to entitle her to an SBP annuity. The beneficiary form that the applicant refers to was to entitle her to the service member's unpaid retired pay, not as a beneficiary...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03119
Thus, she is requesting reconsideration of the recommendation in part and she proposes the following: (1) her deceased husband’s records be corrected to show that he elected spouse and child SBP coverage on 31 January 1981, (2) the total accrued benefits (from 22 October 2001 until a final decision by the Board) shall be accepted as payment in full towards the amount that would have been deducted had her deceased husband elected to contribute to the SBP Plan on 31 January 1981, and (3)...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01168
She states her divorce decree did not address the SBP annuity because her counsel advised her that once the member began receiving retired pay that neither the “…condition of the annuity nor the beneficiary could be changed.” She is writing after 30 years because she recently found out the SBP plan could apparently be changed after the receipt of benefits. DPPTR states the law in effect at the time of the applicant’s divorce did not allow retired members to provide SBP coverage to former...