RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 03-00054
INDEX CODE: 137.00
COUNSEL: SIMON GRILL
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her former husband’s records be corrected to show she is entitled to a
Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuity.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She, as the widow, is not receiving portions or all retirement monies
as the member expected to be passed on to her.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of her husband’s
death certificate and a certificate of retirement.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The deceased member and the applicant were married on 9 December 1989.
The member retired on 1 September 1969 and died on 9 June 2000.
Public Law (PL) 105-85 (18 November 1997) established a minimum SBP
annuity for a limited, specific group of suvivors -- annuity, certain
military surviving spouses (ACMSS) -- also referred to as “forgotten
widows,” those unremarried surviving spouses of members, who retired
prior to 21 September 1972, the SBP’s initial open enrollment, and
died prior to 21 March 1974. The $188 monthly special annuity became
effective 1 December 1997 for surviving spouses, who qualified and
applied for the benefit.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPTR states that while it is unfortunate the applicant’s husband
led her to believe that she would be entitled to an annuity after his
death; there is no basis in law which would entitle her to payment of
the SBP. SBP is similar to commercial life insurance in that an
individual must elect to participate and pay the associated premiums
in order to provide coverage. It would be inequitable to those
members, who chose to participate when eligible and subsequently
received reduced retired pay, and to other widows, whose sponors chose
not to participate, to provide entitlement to this widow on the basis
of the evidence presented. Therefore, they recommend denial of
applicant’s request.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 24 January 2003, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded
to the applicant for review and response 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
and adopt their rationale as the basis for the 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.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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 8 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mrs. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Panel Chair
Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Dec 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPTR, dated 21 Jan 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 24 Jan 03.
KATHY L. BOOCKHOLDT
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03764
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR recommend that applicant’s request be denied and stated that there is no evidence of Air Force error or injustice, or merit in fact, nor basis in law to approve this case. Briefing material used at the time the member completed his RSFPP election clearly stated that “dependents acquired after you retire are not eligible to receive Family Protection Plan annuity payments,” payments would only...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03119
Thus, she is requesting reconsideration of the recommendation in part and she proposes the following: (1) her deceased husband’s records be corrected to show that he elected spouse and child SBP coverage on 31 January 1981, (2) the total accrued benefits (from 22 October 2001 until a final decision by the Board) shall be accepted as payment in full towards the amount that would have been deducted had her deceased husband elected to contribute to the SBP Plan on 31 January 1981, and (3)...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03521
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03521 INDEX CODE: 137.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her late husband's records be corrected so that she may be eligible for a Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuity. They state that Public Law (PL) 98-525 permitted former spouses to submit a request to deem an SBP election change...
As a result of the CG’s decision, the AFBCMR advised the applicant by letter dated 23 Jan 98 that, since the Board lacked the authority to approve claims that were filed more than six years after the death of the service member, her case was being returned and administratively closed (Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Prior to the Pride v. US ruling, the Chief, Retiree Services Branch, AFPC/DPPTR, had provided the following...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01301
The complete DPPRT evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In her undated and unsigned response, the applicant states that for her aunt not to apply for her SBP annuity speaks volumes. It appears documentation was filed to report her uncle’s death but the process for application of the SBP annuity was never completed. ______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...
The evidence also establishes the deceased member’s efforts to provide the applicant with all the benefits she was entitled to as the spouse of a retired service member. Microfiche records verify SBP enrollment packets and newsletters were mailed to the address the decedent provided to the finance center during the 1981-1982 and 1992-1993 open enrollment periods. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the...
He was retired from the Air Force before he married his former spouse, and against his request, she is receiving his SBP benefits. At that time he requested his former spouse be removed from the SBP and that the applicant be designated as the eligible spouse beneficiary when she gained eligibility. Applicant’s letter is at Exhibit D. On 24 March 2003, a copy of a USAF/JAG evaluation regarding former spouse requests for SBP coverage was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03282
There is no evidence the former member elected SBP coverage on the applicant’s behalf during any of the subsequent three SBP_ open enrollment periods conducted prior to his 4 April 2005 death. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The widow of the former member provided a statement saying her husband was not notified that DFAS-CL was not authorized to honor his request....
The deceased member did not enroll in the RSFPP prior to his retirement on 1 June 1963 and did not elect coverage during the initial SBP enrollment. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR recommended denial and stated that there is neither evidence of error or injustice nor any basis in law to grant relief in this case. However, if the decision of the Board is to grant relief, the decedent's record should be corrected to show that...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01319
The deceased member did not enroll in the RSFPP prior to his retirement on 1 June 1963 and did not elect coverage during the initial SBP enrollment. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR recommended denial and stated that there is neither evidence of error or injustice nor any basis in law to grant relief in this case. However, if the decision of the Board is to grant relief, the decedent's record should be corrected to show that...