RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03298
INDEX CODE: 137.01, 137.04
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP) package be resent
to allow him the time for proper receipt and completion of election.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The original RCSBP package was mailed to his old address on 27
December 2000 and his minor daughter, who is twelve (12) years old
signed for the package. He states that during this time he was packing
items for moving/storage and preparing to sell his house. He also
states that he started a new job on 2 January 2001 and was in the
process of moving when the package was delivered.
In support of his request, the applicant provided a copy of his Inova
Health System Employee Profile, reflecting a 2 January 2001 hire date.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant currently serves in the grade of Lieutenant Colonel in
the Air Force Reserves, as an Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA).
The applicant was notified of his eligibility to participate in the
RCSBP when he was first eligible on 3 August 2000. The
election package was sent by certified mail to his address at 6
Blackwater Lane, Hampton, VA. The applicant’s daughter signed for the
package on 27 December 2000. There is no evidence he made an election
at that time. At the end of his 90-day suspense on 28 March 2001, the
applicant was automatically enrolled in Option A, “Deferred election
until age 60.”
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ ARPC/DPS reviewed applicant’s request and recommends denial. DPS
states that members must complete an election within 90 days of
receipt of the RCSBP package. Otherwise, the member remains eligible
to make an election at age 60. The package clearly identified the 90-
day suspense and the applicant failed to elect coverage when he was
eligible.
The DPS evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant responded to the advisory and states that he believes he
should be allowed the opportunity to revisit and change his RCSBP
election. He states that his minor daughter receipted for the
package, and that he was deeply involved in a career change and in the
process of relocating during the exact time the package was received.
He states that given the opportunity to select a preference, he would
elect option C, since it is his desire that his wife and family
immediately receive retired pay if his death occurs before he reaches
age 60.
A complete copy of the applicant’s response, with attachments, is at
Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
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 an error or injustice. In this respect, we note that
the Air Force, in accordance with established procedures, sent the
applicant an election package by certified mail to his address.
Applicant states that the package was signed for by his daughter and
due to the selling of his house, he did not realize the package had
been received. While it is unfortunate that the applicant failed to
make an election prior to the 90-day suspense, we find no error on the
part of the Air Force in regards to the notification and, while
unfortunate, we do not believe that based on the existing
circumstances that the applicant has been the victim of an injustice.
It should be noted that applicant remains eligible to make an election
upon reaching age 60. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable action on
this application.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of an material error or an 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 BC-2002-
03298 in Executive Session on 8 April 2003, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mrs. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Chair
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Sep 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, HQ ARPC/DPS, dated 26 Nov 02, w/atchs
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Dec 02.
Exhibit D. Applicant's response, dated 22 Jan 03, w/atchs.
KATHY L. BOOCKHOLDT
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-03751
A certified package notifying the servicemember of his eligibility to participate in RCSBP was sent to his home address and his wife signed for the package on 13 May 1994. ARPC has no record of receiving an election request from the servicemember. 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 its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00363
In her opinion, the injustice is that with the history of her husband’s interest in seeing that she would be financially secure, she is certain he would have returned the package checking Option C. In support of her request, applicant provided copies of her husband’s Certificate of Death and their Marriage Certificate, a Domestic Return Receipt for the RCSBP packet, two RCSBP computation sheets, and documents pertaining to her former husband’s eligibility for retired pay. When the former...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00593
While he was notified by mail of this opportunity, no evidence exists to show he made an election. DPS states the member had two opportunities to elect the coverage he felt he needed at those times. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03589
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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-00708
He states he was unaware that he had to change his RCSBP election to include his children however he was notified by letter of the requirement. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC- 2005-00708 in Executive Session on 7 July 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Member Ms. Marcia Jean Bachman, Member The following documentary...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03708
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. In fact, the evidence of record shows that the applicant received the initial RCSBP package at his home on 21 November 1997, and did not respond to it. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00690
We have reviewed the available evidence pertaining to the applicant’s assertions relating to his Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP) election, and we are unpersuaded that an RCSBP election of spouse and child based on his youngest child’s date of birth is warranted. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 14 April 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Mr. Roscoe...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00035
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00035 INDEX CODE: 137.04 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 12 June 2008 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her late husband’s marital status be changed from “single” to “married” in the year 2001, and that his records be changed to show he elected to participate in the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00978
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04099
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 B. There is no evidence that the former member made an election at that time. Absent persuasive evidence, applicant was denied rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis to disturb the existing record.