RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01495
INDEX CODE: 137.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Corrective action be taken that would allow him to change his spouse
and child to child only coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan
(SBP).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
At this time, this mistake is affecting his retirement pay amount due
to an automatic computer transaction.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits two copies of his DD Form
2656, Data for Payment of Retired Personnel, and a copy of DPPTR’s
letter date 1 May 2003 with the concurrence statement.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was married and had an eligible child when he retired
from Buckley AFB, CO, effective 1 October 2002. He did not complete
the documents necessary to properly establish his retired pay account
(including an SBP election form) until after his retirement date;
therefore, spouse and child coverage based on full retired pay was
established to comply with the law.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPTR states that the applicant has failed to respond to their 1
May 2003 letter requesting he obtain a notarized statement signed by
his wife to acknowledge she understands retired pay ceases when the
member dies, and approval of his request would result in her receiving
no monetary benefit from the Air Force upon the applicant’s death.
Approval of this request, even with the wife’s properly completed
concurrence form, would provide the member an opportunity not afforded
other retirees and is not justified. The applicant may exercise his
option under PL 105-85 to terminate all SBP participation beginning on
1 October 2004. 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:
On 3 July 2003, copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant for review and response within 30 days. As of this date,
this office has received no response.
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 timely filed.
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, BC-
2003-01495, 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 20 Apr 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPTR, dated 1 Jul 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jul 03.
DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
Panel Chair
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01548
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-2003-02485
There is no evidence of an Air Force error or injustice, nor is there any basis in law to grant relief. In some states you are automatically divorced after such a length of time. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are unpersuaded that he should be allowed to terminate spouse coverage under the SBP.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01282
_________________________________________________________________ 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-2003-01361
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01685
The member’s claim that his military records should state his spouse and one child was on his SBP on September 1998 is without merit. The available evidence indicates that the applicant did not elect SBP coverage for his spouse at the time of his retirement or for his current spouse during the 1999-2000 open enrollment period. Therefore, in the absence of substantive evidence to the contrary, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01599
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-2003-02194
On 2 June 2003, the applicant requested that the finance center stop the SBP. Furthermore, the applicant failed to respond to their 7 July 2003 letter requesting he obtain a notarized statement completed by his wife in which she acknowledges retired pay ceases when the applicant dies, that she is currently eligible to receive an annuity valued at approximately $774 per month (after the age of 62, no less than $492), and approval of this request would result in her receiving no...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01653
His third marriage was on 14 Jun 95, but he failed to submit a request to not extend SBP coverage to his third wife before the first anniversary of their marriage; therefore, his third spouse became the eligible spouse beneficiary on 14 Jun 96. Public Law (PL) 99-145 provides a one-year period during which SBP participants with suspended spouse coverage who remarry may choose to not extend SBP protection to the newly acquired spouse. While the applicant acted in a timely manner to notify...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02546
________________________________________________________________ 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...