Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03976
Original file (BC-2002-03976.doc) Auto-classification: Denied


                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03976
            INDEX CODE:  137.00

            COUNSEL:  RICK GATES

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The supplemental portion of his Survivor Benefit Plan (SSBP)  coverage
be terminated and that the premiums be refunded.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The instructions he received with his election package were  confusing
to the point that he elected SSBP, believing  his  payments  for  SSBP
would not begin until he reached age  62,  the  age  that  SSBP  would
actually benefit his former spouse.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

In October 1996,  prior  to  the  applicant’s  60th  birthday,  ARPC’s
Retirement Branch sent him a SBP/SSBP Information  Package  and  a  DD
Form  2656,  coverage  election  form.   The  applicant  elected  SSBP
coverage.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPS recommends denial.  DPS states that there is no evidence that
the member was miscounseled or misinformed regarding his  election  of
RCSBP.  Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant disagrees with the  information  provided  in  the  ARPC/DPS
advisory and feels that he is not being treated fairly.  His  original
intent was only to provide better RCSBP coverage  for  his  ex-spouse.
His contention is that he was not properly counseled on RCSBP and  the
instructions for RCSBP were unclear and completely different from  the
instructions attached to the DPS advisory.  Consequently he has  ended
up paying for two years for a supplemental that  offered  him  nothing
more than what his ex-spouse was to receive anyway.  He contends  that
because his ex-spouse would have received 55% of  his  pay  until  she
turned 62 anyway, why would he pay for a supplemental  for  those  two
years prior to his ex-spouse actually reaching age 62.   He  concludes
that he wants to retain the regular RCSBP but would like to cancel the
RCSBP  supplemental  and  recoup  the  monies  he  has  paid  for  the
supplemental to date.  (Exhibit E)

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ ARPC/DPS recommends  denial.   DPS  reaccomplished  their  original
evaluation and now correctly state the applicant’s request to withdraw
from SSBP and not RCSBP.  In accordance with Title  10  United  States
Code (U.S.C.), there is no provision where the member  can  change  an
election after the 30-day  period  following  his  election.   Section
1448a of Title 10 states that the member may elect,  between  his  2nd
and 3rd anniversary of drawing retired pay, to  discontinue  coverage.
DPS states that there is no evidence that the member was  miscounseled
or misinformed regarding his election of RCSBP.

DPS’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the additional Air Force Evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 30 May 2003, for review and comment within 30  days.   As
of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review  of  the
evidence of record and applicant's submission, we  are  not  persuaded
that his uncorroborated  assertions  of  miscounseling  and  confusing
instructions,  in  and  by  themselves,  sufficiently  persuasive   to
override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  Therefore, we agree
with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary
responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for  our
decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having
suffered either an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the  absence  of
persuasive 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 BC-
2002-03976 in Executive Session on 26 June 2003, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
      Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member
      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Dec 02, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, ARPC/DPS, dated 6 Jan 03.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jan 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Rebuttal, dated 5 Feb 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 7 Apr 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, ARPC/DPS, dated 19 May 03.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 03.




                                   JOSEPH A. ROJ
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03718

    Original file (BC-2003-03718.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant elected SSBP coverage on 3 April 1992 for option C (immediate annuity) for spouse only with 20% supplemental. Evidence provided indicates the applicant chose to elect spouse SSBP coverage on 3 April 1992 for Option C (immediate annuity) for spouse only with 20% supplemental. The applicant has not provided any evidence that would lead us to believe that the SSBP information provided, at the time of her election, was misleading or inaccurate.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03862

    Original file (BC-2003-03862.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03862 INDEX CODE: 137.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be changed to allow him to withdraw from participation in the Supplemental Survivor Benefit Plan (SSBP) and all monies paid be refunded. ARPC/DPS’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01618

    Original file (BC-2003-01618.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was never informed that the 20 percent election would result in three times the amount being deducted for premiums from his retirement pay. 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. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01245

    Original file (BC-2003-01245.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPS has no record showing the applicant made an election at this time. _________________________________________________________________ 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. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01246

    Original file (BC-2003-01246.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no evidence he made an election at that time. At the end of his 90-day suspense 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. Additionally, during the RCSBP open enrollment season from 1 March 1999 to 28 February 2000, records indicate the applicant was notified.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01922

    Original file (BC-2003-01922.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01922 INDEX CODE: 137.00, 137.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect he elected former spouse and child as his beneficiaries for his Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP). The applicant’s 28 September 1997 RCSBP Election Certificate reflects his...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03833

    Original file (BC-2003-03833.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was never informed that $71.00 would be taken out of his retired pay in order for his wife to receive $200.00 upon his death. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPS states the applicant contends he was not counseled on the amount of the cost to participate in the RCSBP program. The applicant contends he was not counseled on the cost to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01300

    Original file (BC-2003-01300.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The election package was sent by certified mail and signed for by Mrs. D--- K--- on 2 September 1994. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPS states that during their RCSBP open enrollment season, March 1999 to 28 February 2000, their records indicate that the applicant was notified at his home of record. They have no record that the applicant made an election at that time.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02519

    Original file (BC-2003-02519.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was advised by AFPC in a letter dated 26 September 1983, that an RCSBP application had not been received at their headquarters from her spouse and there was no RCSBP coverage in effect. If the decision is to grant the relief sought, the servicemember’s record should be corrected to show he elected full, immediate coverage for his spouse (Option C), based on full-retired pay under the RCSBP, effective 20 December 1983. As a consequence, the applicant was advised by AFPC on 26...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03953

    Original file (BC-2003-03953.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    According to Title 10 U.S.C., Section 1448 (a)(2), members must complete an election within 90 days of receipt; otherwise the member remains eligible to make an election at age 60. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states that the entitlements were meant for the retiree to receive and only his signature on the application for the...