RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03158
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her former husband’s records be corrected to show that he elected former
spouse coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) naming her as
beneficiary.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The decision to deny her an SBP annuity because she failed to file within
one year of her divorce to the servicemember is unjust because the statute
was enacted three years after their divorce.
In support of her appeal, the applicant submits her personal statement, a
letter from her Senator, and a copy of their marriage certificate and
divorce decree.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant and the servicemember were married on 24 September 1952.
Prior to the member’s 1 August 1974 retirement in the grade of master
sergeant, he elected spouse only SBP coverage, based on a reduced level of
retired pay.
The applicant and the member divorced on 3 February 1983.
The member remarried on 8 December 1984, but did not notify the Defense
Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) of his divorce or remarriage.
Effective 1 March 1986, Public Law (PL) 99-145 permitted retiring members
to select SBP coverage for a former spouse with the same cost as coverage
options as a spouse.
During the one-year open enrollment periods authorized by PLs 101-189 and
105-261, retirees were permitted to elect former spouse coverage during the
periods 1 April 1992 through 31 March 1993 and 1 March 1999 through 29
February 2000, respectively.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Retiree Services Branch, AFPC/DPPTR, recommends the application
be denied and states, in part, that while there is no code or history entry
that specifically reflects the decedent’s SBP was stopped under the
provisions of PL 100-180 and no premiums deducted after his 1983 divorce
were ever refunded, it is appropriate to conclude that the Air Force
Accounting and Finance Center terminated coverage to comply with that
statute. Furthermore, the date of termination coincides with the
opportunity afforded by this legislation. Unfortunately, DFAS did not
properly ensure copies of critical SBP documentation were safeguarded and
retrievable.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant states that SBP was set up to protect the spouse and this is
why a spouse’s signature is required on all SBP paperwork. It should be
obvious that her best interests were not protected. She has not received
one piece of correspondence from the Air Force informing her of any SBP
program changes. If she had, she could have pursued the issue with her
former spouse while he was still alive.
Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations.
2. The application was 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 relief
should be granted. 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. The office of primary
responsibility has adequately addressed applicant’s contentions and we
agree with their opinion and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for
our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden that she
has suffered either an error or an injustice. Hence, 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 02-03158 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 20 Oct 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Member's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPTR, dated 26 Nov 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Dec 02.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 30 Dec 02.
DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03158
The applicant and the member divorced on 3 February 1983. Effective 1 March 1986, Public Law (PL) 99-145 permitted retiring members to select SBP coverage for a former spouse with the same cost as coverage options as a spouse. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states that SBP was set up to protect the spouse and this is why a spouse’s signature is...
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...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Air Force stated that the applicant was married and elected child only SBP coverage based on full retired pay prior to his 12 May 83 disability retirement. If a member withdraws under this provision, there is no immediate refund of premiums; however, applicable spouse premiums paid by the member can be refunded to the spouse following the member’s death. ...
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-2003-02485
There is no evidence of an Air Force error or injustice, nor is there any basis in law to grant relief. In some states you are automatically divorced after such a length of time. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are unpersuaded that he should be allowed to terminate spouse coverage under the SBP.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02145
The applicant now contends the Air Force erred in determining his effective date of coverage believing it should be established on the date his divorce decree was modified; however, the applicant’s effective date for coverage was determined in accordance with the applicable law in effect at the time he applied for correction of records. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did...
___________________________________________________________________ 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 at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPTR reviewed this application and recommended denial. In Jul 01, former spouse coverage was established...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03271
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03271 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her former husband's records be corrected to show he filed a timely election for former spouse coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) and any SBP premium payments due be waived. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01653
His third marriage was on 14 Jun 95, but he failed to submit a request to not extend SBP coverage to his third wife before the first anniversary of their marriage; therefore, his third spouse became the eligible spouse beneficiary on 14 Jun 96. Public Law (PL) 99-145 provides a one-year period during which SBP participants with suspended spouse coverage who remarry may choose to not extend SBP protection to the newly acquired spouse. While the applicant acted in a timely manner to notify...
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...