RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01037
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 does not recall declining SBP, nor did she sign the AF Form
1266/1267. She would not have knowingly conceded to such a punitive
outcome.
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
November 1985, required as of 1 March 1986 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 21 November 1990.
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 prior to
his 1 October 1992 retirement. The servicemember died on 22 April
2001.
The records maintained by the Finance center indicate the applicant
concurred with the servicemember's election to decline SBP by signing
the AF Form 1267 on 12 August 1992. In a letter dated 25 April 2001,
the applicant disputes that she signed the AF Form 1267, but offers no
proof that the signature on the form is not hers.
An open enrollment was authorized by PL 105-261 (1 March 1999 - 29
February 2000). Each servicemember was notified by direct mail of the
opportunity to enroll during the open enrollment period. The January
1999 issue of the Afterburner, USAF News for Retired Personnel, was
forwarded to the servicemember's address maintained by the finance
center, where he resided until his death and where the applicant
continues to reside. 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 the
open enrollment period. 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 28 June 2002, 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
applicant forfeited her right to an annuity when she signed the AF
Form 1267 concurring with the servicemember’s decision not to elect
coverage. Although the applicant alleges she did not sign the form,
she has not provided persuasive evidence to support that it is not her
signature on the form. 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-
01037 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
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Mar 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPTR, dated 21 Jun 02.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jun 02.
DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01398
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR indicates that the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) was established by Public Law (PL) 92-425 on 21 September 1972, authorizing a one-year open enrollment period for servicemembers to elect coverage. However, if the Board recommends granting the request, the servicemember’s record should be corrected to show the servicemember elected SBP spouse only coverage based on full retired pay effective 21...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02492
Law has established that SBP requires information be provided to servicemembers and spouses concerning the options and effects of SBP prior to the servicemember’s retirement. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR states the applicant provided her written concurrence on the DD Form 2656 declining SBP coverage. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02286
The laws governing SBP prohibits a married service member from electing coverage under SBP for a former spouse if the service member declined coverage prior to retirement unless Congress authorizes an open enrollment period. Open enrollment packages were mailed to all retired service members advising them of the opportunity to make or change an SBP election. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and the...
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...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01999
The member could have elected former spouse SBP coverage on the applicant’s behalf when he applied for commencement of his retired pay, but failed to do so. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 9 August 2002 for review and response within 30 days. After a thorough review of the evidence of...
_________________________________________________________________ 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. He declined SBP coverage prior to his 1 Apr 88 retirement. There is no evidence that the servicemember made an election for spouse coverage during either open enrollment period.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00319
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR states the applicant submitted a notarized letter alleging the signature on the copy of an AF Form 1267, Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) Notification and Concurrence, is not her signature and that she did sign an SBP election form for annuity for 55 percent of the servicemember’s retired pay. If the servicemember had elected full spouse coverage, the applicant’s signature would not have been...