RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00319
            INDEX CODE:137.00

      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  None

      SSN   HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her  former  late-husband’s  records  be  corrected  to  increase  her
Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuity.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When her former late-husband applied for retirement in  October  1991,
she signed the Air Force Form 1266 for  Survivor  Benefit  Plan  (SBP)
Election  for  55  percent;  this  was  done  in  the  presence  of  a
representative in the personnel office at March AFB.

The servicemember passed away on December 25, 2002.   She  called  the
Defense Finance and Accounting Service-Cleveland (DFAS-CL)  Office  to
inform them of the servicemember’s death  because  she  was  receiving
spousal support by a court order.  The  DFAS-CL  office  informed  her
that she would not be receiving the SBP at the 55 percent.

On January 21, 2003, she found an AF Form 1266 signed  by  her  former
late-husband for reduced SBP coverage with her signature forged.

Applicant's complete submission,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Public Law (PL) 99-145 required the spouses of retiring servicemembers
on  or  after  March  1,  1986,  to  concur  with  SBP  elections  the
servicemember elected, if the election was for less than  full  spouse
coverage.   However,  written  concurrence  is  not  required  if  the
servicemember elected spouse coverage based on full retired pay.   The
spouse must be notified of the options and effects of SBP and  of  the
servicemember’s election for maximum
coverage.   Servicemembers  whose   marital   status   changes   after
retirement from spouse to  former  spouse  cannot  increase  the  base
amount following  the  divorce  unless  Congress  authorizes  an  open
enrollment period.  Upon divorce  the  spouse  becomes  ineligible  to
receive SBP, however, the law provides  two  mechanisms  for  changing
spouse to former spouse coverage.  Both must be exercised  within  one
year after the  divorce:   the  servicemember  may  file  an  election
change, or the former spouse may request the retiree be deemed to have
made a change on  his  or  her  behalf  providing  the  former  spouse
provides legal documentation that the  servicemember  agreed,  or  the
court ordered the servicemember, to establish former spouse coverage.

The applicant and the servicemember were  married  on  20  July  1964.
Prior to the servicemember’s 1 October  1991  retirement,  he  elected
spouse and child SBP coverage  based  on  the  low-cost  threshold  in
effect at  that  time.   The  servicemember  and  the  applicant  were
divorced on 27 September 1994.  The court ordered the servicemember to
continue the  SBP  coverage  for  the  applicant.   The  servicemember
submitted an election on 27 January 1995 in  the  applicant’s  behalf.
The servicemember remarried on 18 October 1999.  The SBP premiums were
being deducted from his retired pay until his  death  on  25  December
2002.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPTR states the applicant submitted a notarized letter  alleging
the signature on the copy of an AF Form 1267,  Survivor  Benefit  Plan
(SBP) Notification and Concurrence, is not her signature and that  she
did sign an SBP election form  for  annuity  for  55  percent  of  the
servicemember’s retired pay.  Due to the  Cleveland  finance  center’s
inability  to  retrieve  pre-November  1993  Air  Force  retired   pay
documents, DPPTR could not provide a copy of the AF Form 1267 used  to
establish the  servicemember’s  retired  pay  account.   However,  the
Denver microfiche records reflect the  servicemember  elected  reduced
spouse and child coverage based on the low-threshold cost with spousal
concurrence.  If the servicemember had elected full  spouse  coverage,
the applicant’s signature would not have been required on the AF  Form
1267.  The copy of the AF Form 1267 the  applicant  provided  reflects
the  SBP  counselor  properly  complied  with  Air  Force  procedures.
Furthermore, the counselor annotated Section II,  indicating  the  SBP
notification package was sent on 5 August 1991  to  the  applicant  by
certified mail and she signed the return  mail  receipt  on  8  August
1991.

The applicant alleges the signature on the AF Form 1267 is a  forgery.
The applicant has not provided any examples of  signature  during  the
timeframe in question,  or  testimony  from  a  competent  handwriting
expert, in support of her allegation.

The monthly cost of reduced SBP at the time the servicemember  retired
was $9.07 per month (2.5  percent  of  $363).   At  the  time  of  the
applicant and servicemember’s divorce the cost had risen  by  cost-of-
living  adjustments  (COLAs)  to  $10.69   per   month.    Since   the
servicemember’s and the applicant’s divorce the base amount has  risen
to $498 and monthly premiums as of 1  December  2002  are  $16.12  per
month.  The applicant is not  currently  receiving  SBP,  but  she  is
entitled to approximately $273 per month (55 percent  of  $498).   Had
the servicemember elected full SBP coverage the applicant  would  have
been eligible to receive $1,600 per month (55 percent of $2900)  until
age 62.

AFPC/DPPTR finds no evidence of  error  or  injustice  and  therefore,
recommends the requested relief be denied.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states during  the
timeframe in question, she and  the  servicemember  were  married  and
living together, she worked five days a week for DOD  at  Norton  AFB.
The servicemember was home on terminal leave and  must  have  received
the mail and signed on her behalf.  She did not receive  or  sign  any
documentation for a reduced  annuity.   The  applicant  has  submitted
samples of her signature for that time period.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is attached  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.

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 the recommendation of  the  Air
Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our  conclusion  that
the applicant has not been the victim of an error or  injustice.   The
applicant contends that she signed an SBP election  form  which  would
provide her with full spouse coverage.   Additionally,  the  applicant
alleges that the signature on the Air Force (AF) Form 1267, which  she
found after her former spouse’s death, is a forgery.  We note  however
that had the servicemember  elected  spouse  coverage  based  on  full
retired pay, the applicant’s signature would not have been required on
the AF Form 1267.  Rather, all that was required was  notification  of
the election for maximum coverage.  We note  the  applicant  submitted
samples  presumably  of  her  signature  during  the  time  period  in
question; however, although we  are  not  handwriting  experts,  these
samples, in and by themselves,  are  not  sufficiently  persuasive  to
determine the signature on the AF Form 1267 is  a  forgery.   Further,
the  applicant  has  not  provided  any  testimony  from  a  competent
handwriting specialist that the signature on the AF  Form  1267  is  a
forgery of her signature.  Therefore, in the absence  of  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-
2003-00319 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
              Mr. William H. Anderson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Jan 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPTR, dated 19 Mar 03.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Mar 03.
      Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 20 Apr 03, w/atchs.




                             JOSEPH A. ROJ
                             Panel Chair