RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03886
INDEX CODE: 128.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be provided Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) at a rate based on
his spouse’s residence rather than for his permanent duty location.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His wife has been diagnosed with severe depression and anxiety
disorder. Due to her illness, she has been moved back to her home
state to overcome this with the support from her friends and family.
Recently, she has been forced to find a job, despite her condition,
due to the fact that she was only receiving BAH for his permanent duty
location rather than for her current location. That is a difference
of over $500.00. He believes this is unjust.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a statement from his
spouse’s treating physician.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
airman first class, having been promoted to that grade on 22 Jul 01.
His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 22 Mar 00.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air
Force.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ USAF/DPPCC recommending denial indicating that by law (Title 37,
United States Code (USC), Section 403), a member is entitled to BAH at
a rate determined by their permanent duty station in the Continental
United States (CONUS) in accordance with Department of the Defense
(DOD) policy as set forth in DODFMR, Volume 7A, Chapter 26. According
to HQ USAF/DPPCC, the applicant does not qualify for a BAH waiver.
BAH waivers are considered by the Service Secretary for members
assigned to dependent-restricted/unaccompanied tours, low-cost/no-cost
moves in the same local area, and permanent change of station moves
that involve training and are less than 12 months. The applicant’s
situation does not fall into the aforementioned categories.
A complete copy of the HQ USAF/DPPCC evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 6 Jan
03 for review and response. As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
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. The applicant's complete
submission was thoroughly reviewed and his contentions were duly
noted. However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions, in and of
themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided
by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR). While we
find the applicant’s situation to be unfortunate, in the absence of
sufficient evidence that his current BAH rate is erroneous, we agree
with the recommendation of the OPR and adopt their rationale as the
basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his
burden of establishing that he has suffered either an error
or an injustice. Accordingly, 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-
03886 in Executive Session on 11 Mar 03, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
Mr. George Franklin, Member
Ms. Martha Maust, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Nov 02, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Letter, HQ USAF/DPPCC, dated 6 Jan 03.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jan 03.
DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
Panel Chair
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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-00849
Maj M added she encouraged the enlisted member with the ROTC package because “then she would be out of the military and what she did then [was] her business.” On 11 Sep 01, the squadron commander (Maj S) recommended to the wing commander that the applicant be involuntarily discharged for serious and recurring misconduct punishable by military authorities, specifically, his knowing and willing engagement in an ongoing unprofessional relationship with a female enlisted member of his squadron...
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-2003-01398
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-01370
Had the applicant elected spouse only coverage at the time of his retirement, coverage and costs would have been suspended upon the divorce. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 Jun 03 for review and comment within 30 days. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03695
A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel takes exception to the advisory opinions and presents arguments contending the application is timely, his client is not seeking promotion on the basis of expediency, she did attempt to involve the IG and upgrade the AFCM, and sufficient evidence has been provided to warrant granting the relief sought. It...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01037
_________________________________________________________________ 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. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01550
The letter also explained that if she agreed with her husband’s child only election, she must sign and date the DD Form 2656 in the presence of a notary or a Military Personnel Flight (MPF) representative, and the form must be returned before her husband’s retirement date or maximum spouse coverage and costs will take effect. The applicant’s wife signed the election form eighteen days after his retirement date, evidence that the letter was received, and her signature was notarized in...
___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Air Force stated that the applicant elected child only SBP coverage based on full retired pay prior to his 1 Mar 73 retirement. They stated that a member who fails to provide SBP coverage for an eligible spouse at the time of retirement may not later elect coverage for that person, or another person of the same category, unless Congress authorizes an open enrollment. ...