Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01246
Original file (BC-2003-01246.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                   RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS



IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01246
            INDEX CODE:  137.01, 137.04
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  Reserve  Component  Survivor  Benefit  Plan  (RCSBP)  package  be
corrected to reflect he selected  Option  C  (Immediate  coverage  for
spouse) and not Option A (Deferrred election until age 60).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He and his spouse are  in  non-concurrence  and  his  spouse  was  not
available and therefore not properly briefed.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant retired from the Air National Guard on 1 March  2003  in
the  grade  of  Colonel.   He  was  notified  of  his  eligibility  to
participate in the RCSBP when he was  first  eligible.   The  election
package was sent by certified mail to his address and signed for on  3
August 1994.  There is no evidence he made an election at  that  time.
At the end of his 90-day  suspense  the  applicant  was  automatically
enrolled in Option A, “Deferred election until age 60.”

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ ARPC/DPS reviewed applicant’s request and recommends  denial.   The
RCSBP package sent to the applicant had instructions  to  contact  the
Entitlements Branch if he had any questions.  There is no proof of any
willful intent to mislead the applicant into choosing Option  A.   The
cover letter clearly states that if the member is married,  he  should
discuss the options with his spouse.

Additionally, during the RCSBP open  enrollment  season  from        1
March 1999 to 28 February 2000, records  indicate  the  applicant  was
notified.  Open enrollment is for members who had  previously  elected
less than full coverage for their spouses and were able  to  elect  or
increase coverage.  There is no record that he  made  an  election  at
that time.

The DPS evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 23
May 2003 for review and comment 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 timely filed.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice.  In this respect, we note that
the Air Force, in accordance with  established  procedures,  sent  the
applicant an election package by certified mail to his address.  While
it is unfortunate that the applicant failed to make an election  prior
to the 90-day suspense, we find no error on the part of the Air  Force
in regards to the notification  and,  while  unfortunate,  we  do  not
believe that based on the existing circumstances  that  the  applicant
has been the  victim  of  an  injustice.   It  should  be  noted  that
applicant remains eligible to make an election upon reaching  age  60.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
basis upon which to recommend favorable action on this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of an material 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 Docket  Number  BC-2003-
01246 in Executive Session on 26 June 2003, under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
                 Mr. William H Anderson, Member
                 Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 Mar 03.
      Exhibit B. Letter, HQ ARPC/DPS, dated 16 May 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 May 03.





      JOSEPH A. ROJ

      Panel Chair


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03953

    Original file (BC-2003-03953.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    According to Title 10 U.S.C., Section 1448 (a)(2), members must complete an election within 90 days of receipt; otherwise the member remains eligible to make an election at age 60. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states that the entitlements were meant for the retiree to receive and only his signature on the application for the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01300

    Original file (BC-2003-01300.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The election package was sent by certified mail and signed for by Mrs. D--- K--- on 2 September 1994. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPS states that during their RCSBP open enrollment season, March 1999 to 28 February 2000, their records indicate that the applicant was notified at his home of record. They have no record that the applicant made an election at that time.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01245

    Original file (BC-2003-01245.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPS has no record showing the applicant made an election at this time. _________________________________________________________________ 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. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02519

    Original file (BC-2003-02519.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was advised by AFPC in a letter dated 26 September 1983, that an RCSBP application had not been received at their headquarters from her spouse and there was no RCSBP coverage in effect. If the decision is to grant the relief sought, the servicemember’s record should be corrected to show he elected full, immediate coverage for his spouse (Option C), based on full-retired pay under the RCSBP, effective 20 December 1983. As a consequence, the applicant was advised by AFPC on 26...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02049

    Original file (BC-2003-02049.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant’s attorney states that the core issue is whether or not the applicant received the entitlements package setting forth the options available to him under the RCSBP. The date is clearly in error because it would be a factual impossibility for the election package to be received and signed for prior to when the package was sent. In this case, because the applicant...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02455

    Original file (BC-2003-02455.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no evidence he made an election at that time. The applicant was sent an open enrollment letter to his home address during the RCSBP open enrollment season, 1 March 1999 to 28 February 2000. During the RCSBP open enrollment season from 1 March 1999 to 28 February 2000, records indicate the applicant was notified.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01618

    Original file (BC-2003-01618.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was never informed that the 20 percent election would result in three times the amount being deducted for premiums from his retirement pay. 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. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02163

    Original file (BC-2003-02163.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPS states that the spouse of the former member is entitled to other benefits as the unremarried widow of a retirement eligible member. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The spouse of the former member states that a package was sent certified mail and signed for by...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03718

    Original file (BC-2003-03718.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant elected SSBP coverage on 3 April 1992 for option C (immediate annuity) for spouse only with 20% supplemental. Evidence provided indicates the applicant chose to elect spouse SSBP coverage on 3 April 1992 for Option C (immediate annuity) for spouse only with 20% supplemental. The applicant has not provided any evidence that would lead us to believe that the SSBP information provided, at the time of her election, was misleading or inaccurate.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01183

    Original file (BC-2004-01183.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Since his election was deferred until age 60, he would have been eligible to make his RCSBP election choice in April 2005. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case and sympathize with her positiion; 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. ...