RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01550
INDEX CODE: 137.01, 137.04
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to show that he elected child only coverage
under the survivor benefit plan (SBP) rather than spouse coverage.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His wife was out of town and was unable to sign the DD Form 2656 (Data
for Payment of Retired Personnel) while he was on active duty.
In support of his request, applicant provided a notarized copy of DD
Form 2656, Application for Correction of Military Record Under the
Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552, and a statement from
his wife.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The former member was married and had dependent children prior to his
1 March 2003 retirement. The SBP counselor at the Pentagon briefed
the member and he elected child only SBP coverage; however, his wife
did not concur in the election until after his retirement date,
invalidating the election. Consequently, the DFAS-CL established
automatic spouse coverage based on full retired pay to comply with the
law.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPTR recommends denial. The applicant’s claim that his wife
was unable to sign because she was out of town is without merit. On 6
December 2002, the SBP counselor at the Pentagon mailed the form and a
letter to his wife, the date the applicant made the election,
requesting her concurrence. 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 counselor also provided a copy of the SBP Report of
Individual Person (RIP) the applicant had signed, acknowledging he
understood the options and effects of his actions pertaining to his
SBP election.
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 Lakewood LA. Furthermore, the member
failed to respond to our 7 May 2003 letter requesting he obtain a
notarized statement completed by his wife in which she acknowledges
retired pay ceases when the member dies, and approval of his request
would result in her receiving no monetary benefit from the Air Force
in the event of the applicant’s death.
Approval of this request would provide the petitioner 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 March 2005.
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 9 June 2003, for review and response. As of this date,
this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
HE 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 the releif requested should be granted. 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
his 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-
01550 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 23 Apr 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPTR, dated 5 Jun 03.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jun 03.
DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01495
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 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. 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...
DFAS has no record of the applicant submitting a valid SBP disenrollment request during the authorized timeframe to submit a request to terminate his enrollment in SBP. In this respect, PL 105-85 provides a one-year window of opportunity to disenroll from the SBP provided the service member submits a completed DD Form 2656-2, with the notarized signature of the beneficiary concurring with the termination of the SBP. _________________________________________________________________ The...
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-2003-01361
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 | CY2004 | BC-2004-02108
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR states that Public Law (PL) 99-145 requires spouses of married servicemembers to concur in writing, prior to the servicemember’s retirement, in SBP elections that provide less than full spouse coverage. DPPTR further states SBP elections can not be arbitrarily terminated as long there are eligible beneficiaries; however, PL 105-85, effective 18 November 1997, authorized retired servicemembers...
A xxxx informed him that all he would need to do was complete DD Form 2656-2, Termination of SBP Request, have his spouse sign the request and forward the completed form to DFAS for processing. The applicant contends that he was improperly counseled about the options of having SBP reinstated at a future date. The applicant wanted to terminate his SBP coverage for his spouse immediately.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02492
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 | CY2007 | BC-2007-00703
However, her concurrence on the DD Form 2656, was dated prior to the date the member signed, which invalidated the election. However, should the applicant provide the Board a notarized statement from his spouse declining coverage the Board would reconsider his case. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2007- 00703 in Executive Session on 7 June 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Ms. Kathy L....