Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01479
Original file (BC-2003-01479.doc) Auto-classification: Denied


                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01479
            INDEX CODE:  137.03
            COUNSEL:  NONE

                 HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be disenrolled from the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She and her spouse were led  to  believe  that  upon  her  death,  her
husband would receive 55 percent of her retired pay regardless of age.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was married and on 31 October 2002,  made  a  valid  SBP
election for spouse only coverage based on full-retired pay, prior  to
her 1 January 2003  retirement.   Since  she  elected  maximum  spouse
coverage, her husband’s concurrence was not required.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPTR reviewed applicant’s request and recommends  denial.   Each
person attends a one-on-one SBP briefing given  by  an  SBP  counselor
prior to their retirement and part  of  that  briefing  addresses  the
annuity reduction at age 62 from 55 percent to 35 percent and the one-
year disenrollment opportunity.  Even though we can neither  deny  nor
confirm the member’s claim  of  miscounselling,  by  signing  the  SBP
election form she acknowledged that she fully understood the  election
she made.  The applicant may  disenroll  with  her  husband’s  written
concurrence, during the
one-year period beginning 1 January 2005, as authorized by PL




105-85.  Approval of this  request  would  provide  the  applicant  an
opportunity not afforded other retirees.

The DPPTR evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:


A complete copy of the Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 3 June 2003, for review and response.  As of  this  date,
this office has received no response.


_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a  thorough  review  of
the  evidence  of  record  and  applicant's  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that she should be allowed to disenroll  from  the  Survivor
Benefit Plan.  Applicant's contentions are duly noted; however, we  do
not  find  these  assertions,  in  and  by  themselves,   sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the  Air  Force.   We
therefore agree with the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt the
rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that  the  applicant
has failed to sustain her burden of having suffered either an error or
an injustice.  In view of the above and absent of persuasive  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 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-
01479 in Executive Session on 30 September 2003, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

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

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Apr 03.
      Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPPTR, dated 30 May 03
      Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jun 03.




      DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
      Panel Chair


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01550

    Original file (BC-2003-01550.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01548

    Original file (BC-2003-01548.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Since he was married and had dependent children at the time, he was automatically enrolled for full spouse and child coverage under the SBP. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that relief should be granted. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2003-01548 in Executive Session on 30 September 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36- 2603: Mr....

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02492

    Original file (BC-2003-02492.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Law has established that SBP requires information be provided to servicemembers and spouses concerning the options and effects of SBP prior to the servicemember’s retirement. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR states the applicant provided her written concurrence on the DD Form 2656 declining SBP coverage. 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-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 | BC-2003-02187

    Original file (BC-2003-02187.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    AFPC/DPPTR also states that there is no evidence in the servicemember’s records to indicate that he elected to participate in the RSFPP or SBP during any of the authorized enrollment periods. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit B. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02384

    Original file (BC-2003-02384.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    AFPC/DPPTR also states that there is no evidence in the servicemember’s records to indicate that he elected to participate in the RSFPP or SBP during any of the authorized enrollment periods. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit B. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01037

    Original file (BC-2002-01037.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR states Public Law (PL) 99-145, established on 8 November 1985, required as of 1 March 1986 spousal concurrence of the SBP election, if the election was providing less than maximum spouse coverage. According to the Defense Finance and Service - Cleveland Center (DAFS- CL) the servicemember elected full spouse and child coverage under SBP, but later submitted a corrected election to decline SBP...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | 0201563

    Original file (0201563.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2001 | 0002770

    Original file (0002770.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02770 INDEX CODE: 137.04 (DECEASED) COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) election be changed from spouse only coverage to spouse and children coverage, based on full retired pay. With respect to the question concerning the recoupment of premiums for spouse only...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01361

    Original file (BC-2003-01361.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was told both times that he would not be able to cancel the plan until 1 Apr 03. Disenrollments are effective upon receipt of a properly completed request by DFAS-CL, postmarked not later than the member’s third anniversary of receiving retired 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...