ADDENDUM TO
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:                 DOCKET NO:  BC-2001-01891
                             INDEX CODE:  137.03

                                  COUNSEL:  NONE

                                  HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In the applicant’s  request  for  reconsideration,  he  requests  corrective
action that  would  permit  him  to  terminate  spouse  coverage  under  the
Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) and reimbursement of payments.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Prior to the applicant’s 1 November 1980  retirement,  he  had  elected  SBP
coverage based on full retired pay.  The applicant divorced  on  15  January
1987;  however,  SBP  coverage  and  premiums  were  not   suspended   until
17 February 1987 when  the  Finance  Center  received  notification  of  the
divorce.  The applicant remarried on 9 September 1992, but failed to  inform
the Finance Center that he did not want to extend SBP  coverage  before  the
first anniversary of his marriage.  On 22 May 2001, the Defense Finance  and
Accounting Service - Cleveland Center received a letter from  the  applicant
advising them to change his beneficiary to his new wife.  Upon  learning  of
the applicant’s remarriage,  the  Finance  Center  reinstated  SBP  coverage
retroactive to 9 September 1992 and monthly premiums began  to  be  deducted
from his retired pay.

A similar appeal was considered and denied  by  the  Board  on  25 September
2001.  A summary of the evidence considered by the Board and  the  rationale
for its decision is set forth in  the  Record  of  Proceedings,  AFBCMR  01-
01891, which is attached at Exhibit F.

The applicant submitted a new application contending that, at  the  time  of
his retirement, he was never briefed on SBP.  He further feels  that  it  is
unfair for him to be placed in a program that he was never  briefed  on  nor
is there any documentation to prove that he elected SBP coverage.   Inasmuch
as the current application contains the same request  which  was  previously
considered  by  the  Board,  it  is  being  processed  as  a   request   for
reconsideration of the initial application.  To support his  assertion,  the
applicant provided copies of an AFBCMR letter, with the ROP, the  Air  Force
evaluation  and  documents  associated  with  the  issues   cited   in   his
contentions.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments,  is  at
Exhibit G.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request, HQ  AFPC/DPPTR,  reviewed  the  applicant’s
most recent submission.  DPPTR stated that, while they can  neither  confirm
nor deny the applicant’s claim that he was not  properly  briefed  prior  to
his retirement, a spouse acquired after retirement automatically became  the
eligible beneficiary of the applicant’s  suspended  coverage  on  the  first
anniversary of their post-retirement marriage until 1 Mar  86,  when  Public
Law 99-145 was enacted.  The  new  options  available  to  participants  who
remarried after that date were highly publicized  in  official  newsletters.
It is each retiree’s responsibility  to  take  all  appropriate  actions  to
ensure benefits are properly secured  and  obligations  satisfactorily  met.
DPPTR  stated  that,  in  1980,  documents  were  not  routinely  placed  on
microfilm by the Finance Center and hard copies were  not  kept  during  the
1993 transfer of retired pay responsibility from the  Air  Force  Accounting
and Finance Center (AFAFC) to the Defense Finance and Accounting  Service  -
Cleveland Center.  Therefore, DPPTR’s original recommendation  to  deny  the
applicant’s request is unchanged.  HQ AFPC/DPPTR’s evaluation is at  Exhibit
H.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the  Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  applicant  on  15
November 2002 for review and response.  As of this  date,  no  response  has
been received by this office (Exhibit I).
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After again reviewing this application and the evidence provided in  support
of the appeal,  we  remain  unpersuaded  that  a  revision  of  the  earlier
determination in this case is warranted.  The  applicant’s  contention  that
he was not properly briefed prior to his 1980  retirement  was  duly  noted.
Even if the applicant was not officially briefed on  the  SBP  program,  SBP
information is  regularly  published  in  the  Afterburner,  USAF  News  for
Retired Personnel; therefore, he could have used this  means  as  a  way  of
contacting the appropriate office to address his concerns.  With  regard  to
terminating the reinstated SBP  coverage,  Public  Law  99-145,  allowing  a
participant,  with  suspended  spouse  coverage,  to  elect  not  to  resume
coverage for a subsequently acquired spouse was enacted into  law  in  1986.
Additionally, we noted that information concerning the options available  to
participants  who  remarried  after  Public  Law  99-145  was  enacted  were
publicized in official newsletters, such as the Afterburner, USAF  News  for
Retired Personnel.  In view of the foregoing, we agree with the opinion  and
recommendation  of   the   appropriate   Air   Force   office   of   primary
responsibility and adopt the  rationale  expressed  as  the  basis  for  our
decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his  burden  that  he  has
suffered either an error or  an  injustice.   Therefore,  absent  persuasive
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 probable 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 in  Executive
Session on 25 September 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
      Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
      Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit F.  Record of Proceedings, dated 25 September 2001,
                with Exhibits.
      Exhibit G.  DD Form 149, dated 16 May 2002, with
                attachments.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPTR, dated 14 November 2002.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 November 2002.



                                   DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
                                   Panel Chair