RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02546
            INDEX NUMBER:  137.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Corrective action be taken that would permit him to  provide  Survivor
Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage for his wife.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was unaware of the time constraint of one year from the date of his
marriage to select an SBP for his wife.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a  personal  statement,  a
copy of the  Certified  Abstract  of  Marriage,  a  copy  of  his  Pay
Identification, a copy of the certification of  the  SBP  Briefing,  a
copy of the note to DFAS requesting changes to his retirement account,
a copy of the note requesting the deduction for SBP (spouse  benefits)
be removed from his Retiree Account Statement, copies of December  and
January Retiree Account Statements, and an Afterburner news article.

Applicant’s complete submission,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was unmarried, had eligible children,  and  completed  a
valid election for child-only coverage based on full retired pay prior
to his 1 October 1995 retirement.  However, the  Defense  Finance  and
Accounting Service – Cleveland Center (DFAS-CL) did not receive a copy
of  the  member’s  election  form  and  established  automatic  spouse
coverage based on full retired pay.   On  17  November  1995,  DFAS-CL
received a request from the applicant to delete the  spouse  SBP  cost
since he was not married at retirement.  The  applicant’s  record  was
changed to show he declined SBP coverage and had no  eligible  spouse.
The finance center refunded premiums erroneously deducted  for  spouse
coverage to the applicant.  The applicant and his spouse married on 31
May 1997; however, he failed to request SBP coverage  for  her  within
the first year  of  their  marriage.   Had  child-only  coverage  been
properly  established,   the   monthly   premium   would   have   been
approximately $3 until the youngest child  lost  eligibility  February
2002, child’s 21st birthday.

The remaining 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 C.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPTR  states  that  a  copy  of  the  SBP  RIP  located  in  the
applicant’s records shows he signed the certification sheet  on      7
August 1995, indicating he was properly briefed  on  the  options  and
effects of the Plan.  Item H1 of the SBP RIP explained  that  members,
who have no spouse or child at retirement, may  elect  SBP  for  these
dependents within one year of  acquisition.   Although  the  applicant
indicated that he might have not committed to memory  the  information
received at retirement, he notified the finance center  twice  shortly
after his retirement of the error in his marital status at retirement.
 Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that he was aware  he  should
have contacted the finance center to obtain information  necessary  to
add  his  wife  to  the  Plan  when  he  married.   Additionally,  the
Afterburner, News For USAF Retired Personnel, published January  2000,
reminded retirees of the opportunity to enroll  their  newly  acquired
spouse in the Plan within the first year of marriage.  Public Law 105-
261, 17 October 1998, authorized a one-year open enrollment period  (1
March 1999 – 29 February 2000) for retirees to  elect  coverage.   The
applicant could have elected coverage for his wife during this period,
but failed to do so.  It would be contrary to the letter and intent of
the law, as well as inequitable, to grant this applicant an additional
opportunity  not  afforded  to  other  members   similarly   situated.
Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.   A  complete
copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 13 September 2002, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days.   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 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  this  application  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 25 Jul 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, DPPTR, dated 11 Sep 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Sep 02.




                                   DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
                                   Panel Chair