RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00919
INDEX CODE: 137.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her late husband's records be corrected to show that he elected
coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She did not have a full understanding of her SBP options and that
she was not invited to the briefing.
In support of her request, applicant submits a personal statement
and a copy of her spouse’s Death Certificate.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The decedent prior to his 1 Dec 93 retirement, declined SBP
coverage. The applicant concurred with his selection on 7 Oct 93.
He died on 20 Aug 00.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPTR reviewed this application and recommended denial.
Public Law (PL) 99-145 established the requirement to obtain a
spouse’s written concurrence in any election that provides less
than maximum spouse coverage. Concurrence in SBP elections apply
to all married members retiring on or after 1 Mar 86. The
legislation that established the SBP required, and continues to
require, information be provided to members and spouses concerning
the options and effects of the SBP prior to the member’s
retirement. The Air Force has established regulations,
instructions, and guidelines to ensure the letter and intent of the
Federal statutes controlling the SBP are properly observed and
executed.
The decedent’s SBP election form reflects that the applicant
provided her written concurrence and that her signature was
witnessed by personnel at the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) at
Altus AFB OK on 7 Oct 93. There is no indication that the staff at
the Altus AFB MPF did not comply with Air Force guidance that
requires SBP counselors to mail a letter, inviting the spouse to
the member’s one-on-one briefing, or act inappropriately in
witnessing the member’s election or the applicant’s concurrence.
Since the enactment, SBP counselors send a second letter to the
spouse if the spouse fails to attend the individual briefing,
explaining that the member made an election. SBP counselors are
not permitted to give the member the election form to hand-carry to
the spouse in any situation. Rather, the spouse must appear at the
MPF to sign the form if there is not sufficient time to mail the
form, have it properly notarized, and returned to the MPF before
the effective date of the member’s retirement. If the applicant
had refused to sign the form because she did not fully understand
the impact of her decision, she would have remained eligible for
SBP coverage, the same protection she enjoyed without cost while
the member served on active duty. There is no evidence of error or
injustice.
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 16 May 2003 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).
___________________________________________________________________
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 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. 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-2003-00919 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 6 Mar 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPTR, dated 6 May 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 May 03.
JOSEPH A. ROJ
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03065
He was briefed that SBP costs would be 50% of his retirement pay, which they agonized over before declining SBP coverage. If they were correctly informed during their initial briefing, they would have elected to participate in the program and she would have never signed the form declining coverage. Further, there is no record the member submitted an election under PL 105-261.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02836
The decedent and his second spouse divorced on 22 January 1993 and he again requested his SBP coverage to be stopped. If neither the member nor the former spouse requests the election change during the one- year eligibility period, former spouse coverage may not be established thereafter. DPPTR states that there is no evidence the decedent intended to provide SBP coverage for the applicant following their divorce.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00319
_________________________________________________________________ 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. If the servicemember had elected full spouse coverage, the applicant’s signature would not have been...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00869
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR recommends the applicant’s request be denied. DPPTR states the decedent elected spouse only coverage based on a reduced level of retired pay prior to his 1 March 1989 retirement, and the applicant concurred in his election. The available evidence indicates that the applicant’s husband elected SBP coverage based on a reduced level of retired pay prior to his 1 March 1989 retirement.
Even though the applicant and the decedent were married at the time of his retirement (1 Apr 91), records indicate that the applicant’s valid concurrence in the decedent’s SBP election was obtained prior to his retirement. Subsequently, the decedent was eligible to provide coverage for the applicant during two SBP open enrollment periods authorized by Public Laws (PLs) 101-189 and 105-126 (1 Apr 92 – 31 Mar 93 and 1 Mar 99 – 29 Feb 00, respectively). We took notice of the applicant's...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03883
The deceased member elected spouse only SBP coverage based on full, retired pay effective 30 November 1988. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPTR recommends denial. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-00708
In support of her request, applicant submitted a copy of the former service member’s Death Certificate; a copy of their divorce decree; and copies of the former service member’s DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States for Report of Transfer or Discharge), retirement order, dated 19 Feb 70, and documents associated with his retirement for disability. _________________________________________________________________ AIR STAFF EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPTR reviewed this application and...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00654
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR, recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the disability operations branch notifies a member’s immediate next-of-kin (NOK) in order to act on the member’s behalf, if the retiring member is determined to be incompetent for pay and records. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW...
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-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...