RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00670
            INDEX CODE:  137.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show  that  his  wife  is  entitled  to  a
Survivor Benefit (SBP) annuity.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His first wife was covered under RSFPP (now deceased).  He  never  put
his new wife in because he was never informed of an open season to add
his new spouse.

The applicant did not provide any documents in support of the appeal.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant and his former wife were married on 6 January 1951,  and
he elected coverage for her  under  the  Retired  Servicemen’s  Family
Protection Plan (RSFPP) prior to his 1 February 1967  retirement.   He
did not elect coverage for his former wife during the 72-74, 81-82  or
92-93 open enrollments and she died         29 November 1997.  Defense
Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS)  records  reflect  the
applicant and his current wife married  on  10  September  1999.   The
RSFPP has no provision to allow coverage to  be  extended  to  spouses
acquired after retirement.  The applicant advised the Defense  Finance
and Accounting Service - Cleveland Center (DFAS-CL) of his new address
November 1999.  There is no evidence he submitted an  election  during
the open enrollment authorized by PL 105-261.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPTR states that the Afterburner is published only three times a
year - January, May and September.  The  January,  May  and  September
1999 issues of the Afterburner, containing information, the prescribed
form,  and  follow-up  information  about  the  1999-2000   SBP   open
enrollment, were sent to the applicant at 31 Rock Royal Road,  Trenton
, NJ 08620-1611, the address he had reported to the finance center  as
his correspondence address since as early as December 1978  and  which
he did not change until November 1999.  The 1999-2000 open  enrollment
required members to pay  a  lump-sum  buy-in  and  complete  repayment
within 24 months after making the election.  The amount of the  buy-in
was based upon the earliest date the  member  was  eligible  to  elect
coverage, but did not.  In this case, the applicant’s lump-sum  buy-in
would have been approximately $33,000 and  the  current  monthly  cost
would be about $82, which would provide the  P---  approximately  $444
(35 percent of the member’s gross retired pay).   The  petitioner  had
several opportunities to elect spouse coverage, but he did not.  If he
had elected SBP for G--- in 1972, 1981, or  1992  his  coverage  would
have been suspended following her death and reinstated  on  the  first
anniversary of his marriage to P---.  Furthermore, he would  not  have
had to pay the lump-sum buy-in, nor live for two years  following  the
effective date of the election in order for P---  to  be  eligible  to
receive SBP payments.  Rather, she  would  have  automatically  become
eligible for the SBP on the first anniversary of their marriage.  Only
250 Air Force retirees elected coverage  during  the  open  enrollment
authorized by PL 105-261.  It would be inequitable to  those  members,
who chose to participate when first eligible or suffered repaying  the
lump-sum buy-in required for members who elected coverage under PL 105-
261,  to  provide  this  applicant  another  opportunity  to   enroll.
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:

The applicant states that he did receive an Afterburner or  enrollment
packet with the 99-00 SBP info in  it,  or  he  certainly  would  have
looked into enrolling in the SBP Plan  for  P---  at  that  time.   As
anyone knows, moving and getting married in the same year was quite an
ordeal and it certainly was not on his mind  immediately.   Also,  why
would he have switched his first wife, G---, into the  SBP  Plan  when
she was already covered under the  RSFPP  Plan.   He  had  no  way  of
knowing she was going to pass and he was going to remarry.

He feels a buy-in is not feasible for most people, including  himself,
when death is an act of nature and not something he  had  control  of.
He feels that he should be entitled to leave his  present  wife,  P---
with some kind of benefit from the Government should  he  pass  before
her and since his first  wife,  G---  never  received  anything  in  a
survival benefit.  He would hope this could be done as a correction of
his military record.

Applicant's complete response 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 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.

_________________________________________________________________

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 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 20 Feb 03.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPTR, dated 27 Mar 03.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Apr 03.
      Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 18 Apr 03.




                             JOSEPH A. ROJ
                             Panel Chair