Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01220
Original file (BC-2003-01220.doc) Auto-classification: Denied


                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01220
            INDEX CODE:  137.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His record be changed to show he added his wife to his child  only  Survivor
Benefit Plan (SBP) annuity.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On his last retiree account statement dated February 2003, he realized  that
the SBP coverage  for  child,  date  of  birth  2 November  1990,  is  still
effective.  On 15 January 2003,  he  mailed  a  designation  of  beneficiary
information form with the information of  his  spouse  thinking  this  would
change the SBP coverage to his spouse.  He indicates  that  he  has  had  no
contact with his child or the child’s mother for over five  years.   He  has
no idea where they are located and he has tried to  contact  them  over  the
years without success.  He was married on 1 September 2000  and  would  like
his spouse added to his SBP annuity coverage.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided  a  personal  statement,  a
copy of his Marriage Certificate, dated  1  September  2000,  AF  Form  1266
Survivor Benefit Plan  (SBP)  Election,  dated  25 August  1992,  and  other
documentation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was unmarried and elected child only  SBP  coverage  based  on
full retired pay prior to his 1 November 1992 retirement date.

The applicant married on  1  September  2000,  but  he  did  not  elect  SBP
coverage for his spouse within the first year following his marriage.

On 14 January 2003, the applicant sent a request to the Defense Finance  and
Accounting Service - Cleveland Center (DFAS-CL), designating his  spouse  as
the beneficiary to his unpaid retired pay in the event of his death.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPTR recommended denial.  They indicated that the applicant claims  he
submitted a request to change his beneficiary,  however,  that  request  was
submitted more than two years following his marriage.  There  is  no  record
that he submitted a request within the  first  year  of  marriage.   SBP  is
similar to commercial life insurance in that an  individual  must  elect  to
participate and pay the associated premiums in order to have coverage.   His
monthly premium for child coverage is approximately  $11;  cost  for  spouse
and child coverage would be approximately $87 per month.  Approval  of  this
request would provide the applicant an additional opportunity to  elect  SBP
coverage  not  afforded  other  retirees  similarly  situated  and  is   not
justified.  If relief is granted, retroactive costs approximate $1,900  plus
interest.  If the Board’s decision  is  to  grant  relief,  the  applicant’s
record should be corrected to show that on 31 August 2001 he elected to  add
his spouse to his child only coverage based on full-retired  pay.   Approval
should be contingent upon the recoupment  of  all  applicable  premiums  the
applicant would have paid had he made the election at that time.

The evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 10 June 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 an 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 our conclusion that the applicant  has  not  been
the victim of an error  or  injustice.   The  applicant  was  unmarried  and
elected child only SBP coverage based on full-retired pay  prior  to  his  1
November 1992 retirement.  He married on 1 September  2000,  but  failed  to
make an election to add his new spouse to his existing coverage  within  the
first year of their marriage, as required by law.  Although he  submitted  a
request  to  change  his  beneficiary,  this  request  was  to  change   his
beneficiary for his arrears of pay, in the event of his death.  The  request
did not  affect  his  SBP  election.   Furthermore,  while  he  contends  he
believes this action would change  his  SBP  beneficiary,  his  request  was
submitted more than  two  years  after  his  marriage.   Therefore,  in  the
absence of evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of an error or an 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-
01220 in Executive Session on 30 September 2003,  under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member
                 Mr. Mike Novel, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 April 2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPTR, dated 9 June 2003.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 June 2003.




                       DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
                       Panel Chair


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01282

    Original file (BC-2003-01282.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant was unmarried and elected child only SBP coverage based on full retired pay prior to his 1 October 1992 retirement date. Records reflect the applicant and N--- married on 13 April 1993, but he failed to elect SBP coverage for her within the first year following their marriage. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02546

    Original file (BC-2002-02546.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was unaware of the time constraint of one year from the date of his marriage to select an SBP for his wife. The applicant and his spouse married on 31 May 1997; however, he failed to request SBP coverage for her within the first year of their marriage. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01599

    Original file (BC-2003-01599.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    It would be contrary to the letter and intent of the law, as well as inequitable, to grant this applicant an additional opportunity not afforded to other members similarly situated. 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. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03271

    Original file (BC-2002-03271.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03271 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her former husband's records be corrected to show he filed a timely election for former spouse coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) and any SBP premium payments due be waived. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01773

    Original file (BC-2003-01773.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR states a servicemember, who is unmarried at retirement and later marries may elect coverage for a newly acquired spouse, as long as the election is made before the first anniversary of the marriage. Although the member contends he submitted a request to change his beneficiary, the request was submitted after the one-year period provided by law. We took notice of the applicant’s complete...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01398

    Original file (BC-2003-01398.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR indicates that the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) was established by Public Law (PL) 92-425 on 21 September 1972, authorizing a one-year open enrollment period for servicemembers to elect coverage. However, if the Board recommends granting the request, the servicemember’s record should be corrected to show the servicemember elected SBP spouse only coverage based on full retired pay effective 21...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | 0202874

    Original file (0202874.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Air Force stated that the applicant elected child only SBP coverage based on full retired pay prior to his 1 Mar 73 retirement. They stated that a member who fails to provide SBP coverage for an eligible spouse at the time of retirement may not later elect coverage for that person, or another person of the same category, unless Congress authorizes an open enrollment. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0102112

    Original file (0102112.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    At that time, RCSBP coverage and premiums were suspended. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR states that SBP spouse coverage is suspended when the spouse loses eligibility. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0003202

    Original file (0003202.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The member and his current spouse married on 17 February 1996, but he failed to advise the finance center that he did not want to extend SBP coverage to his new wife before the first anniversary of their marriage (17 February 1997). A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 30 March...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01833

    Original file (BC-2002-01833.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 7 Jun 02, it was requested that the member provide a completed DD Form 2656-1, SBP Election Statement for Former Spouse Coverage. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit B. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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...