Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | 0201784
Original file (0201784.doc) Auto-classification: Denied




                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01784
            INDEX CODE:  137.04


      COUNSEL:  DONALD A. LABAR


      HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her late husband's records be corrected so  that  she  may  receive  a
Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP) annuity based on  full
retired pay rather than a reduced annuity.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Applicant states that the deceased military  member  believed  he  had
elected the maximum benefit option and that he was incapacitated  when
the later open season enrollment occurred.

In support of her request, applicant submits a personal statement, the
former member’s Death Certificate, a DFAS  Indebtedness  package,  and
supporting statements from family members,  friends,  their  physician
and pastor.

Applicant's complete submission is attached 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 STAFF EVALUATION:

HQ ARPC/DPS reviewed this application  and  recommended  denial.   The
member was notified of his eligibility to  participate  in  the  RCSBP
when he was first  eligible  in  Aug  1984,  and  selected  Option  C,
Immediate Annuity for Spouse  and  Children,  based  on  $300  of  his
retired pay.
During the two RCSBP open enrollment seasons (1 Apr  92  to  31 Mar 93
and 1 Mar 99 to 28  Feb  00),  members  who  elected  less  than  full
coverage for their spouses were able to elect increased  coverage.   A
package was sent to the member at his mailing address.   There  is  no
record of an increased election being made by the member at that time.
The applicant claims that  her  late  husband  did  not  know  he  was
electing  less  than  the  maximum  amount  available  for   survivors
benefits.  However, the applicant signed  the  election  acknowledging
the selection made in Aug 84 and has indicated in her  testimony  that
the member had received counseling.
Applicant’s statement claims her late husband was not mentally capable
of making any rational decisions during the 1999  –  2000  RCSBP  open
enrollment election period.  The first RCSBP  open  enrollment  season
was mailed in Mar 92.   We  cannot  say  with  any  certainty  if  the
deceased member was either rational or irrational  during  the  second
open enrollment.  Statements from  family  and  friends  indicate  the
deceased member was suffering  from  severe  depression.   Applicant’s
doctor had three counseling sessions with the member during  1998  and
concluded that he had severe depression.  He states that the  deceased
member  displayed  a  “flat   and   blunted   affect”   during   later
conversations.  However,  none  of  these  instances  were  documented
because the member was not under his care, nor did he provide any time
period that the conversations might have taken place.
Testimony provided by  the  applicant  appears  to  reflect  incorrect
counseling was provided to the deceased member and  the  applicant  in
Aug 1984.  A detailed package,  including  an  election  form,  sample
calculations, and instructions to contact HQ ARPC Entitlements  branch
or a local military personnel flight to receive additional counseling,
was sent to assist the member in making an  informed  decision  within
the 90 days provided by law.
Based on the selection made in Aug 84, the applicant  is  entitled  to
approximately 55 percent of $300 prior to age 62,  then  approximately
35 percent thereafter.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

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.
Counsel’s complete statement, with attachments, 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 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.   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.  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-
01784 in Executive Session on 21 January 2003, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

           Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
           Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
           Mr. Roscoe Hinton Jr., Member

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 May 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, ARPC/DPS, dated 5 Aug 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Aug 02.
    Exhibit  D.  Letter,  Response  from  Applicant’s  Counsel,  dated
               29 Aug 02, w/atchs.




                                   DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
                                   Panel Chairman

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0102373

    Original file (0102373.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • 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 | CY2003 | BC-2002-03589

    Original file (BC-2002-03589.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-01117

    Original file (BC-2003-01117.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. During the RCSBP open enrollment, March 1999 to 29 February 2000, records indicate that the member was notified but did not respond within the 90 days as required by law. We therefore agree with the recommendation 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.

  • 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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-02163

    Original file (BC-2003-02163.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ 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 | CY2003 | BC-2002-01714

    Original file (BC-2002-01714.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    They have no record the member made an election at either time. 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 in October of 1991, the former member signed for the package explaining retirement benefits that he was to review and elect the option of coverage to be provided. She also read in the letter of 1 November 2002, that the...

  • 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 | CY2007 | BC-2007-00978

    Original file (BC-2007-00978.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    Her husband was notified of his eligibility to participate in the RCSBP by letter dated 28 December 1988. He made no election within 90 days of receipt of notification, and was automatically enrolled in Option A, “Deferred Election Until Age 60.” During the RCSBP Open Seasons 1 April 1992 through 31 March 1993, and 1 March 1999 through 29 February 2000, members who had elected less than full coverage or no coverage for their spouse/children were able to change their election to cover their...