RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01599
INDEX CODE: 137.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to permit him to provide Survivor Benefit
Plan (SBP) coverage for his wife.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
At the time of his discharge from active duty and retirement from the
United States Air Force on 31 December 1997, he had been divorced for
almost two years. At the time, he had no intention to remarry and did
not foresee remarriage in the future. Although he completed all of
the preretirement briefings at Peterson AFB, he did not have any
reason to participate in the SBP portions. So, at the time of his
retirement, he declined enrollment in the SBP program because he saw
no need to participate.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of DD Form 2656,
Data for Payment of Retired Personnel and a copy of the Certification
of SBP Briefing.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was unmarried and elected child only coverage based on
full retired pay prior to his 1 January 1998 retirement. Defense
Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) records show that he
and L--- married on 5 May 2000; however, he failed to make an election
to add her to his existing coverage within the first year of their
marriage. His monthly premium for child coverage is approximately $7;
costs for spouse and child coverage would be approximately $222 per
month.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPTR states that although the applicant claims he was unaware of
the one-year time limit to add his wife, a copy of the SBP RIP located
in his records shows he signed the certification sheet on 29 October
1997, indicating he was properly briefed on the options and effects of
the Plan. Item H1 clearly and specifically describes the option for
members, who have no spouse or child at retirement, are eligible to
elect SBP for these dependents within one year of acquisition.
Additionally, the Afterburner, News for USAF Retired Personnel,
published January 2000, four months before his marriage, reminded
retirees of the opportunity to enroll their newly acquired spouse in
the Plan within the first year of marriage. 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. 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 9 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, 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 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 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-
2003-01599, 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 5 May 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPTR, dated 5 Jun 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jun 03.
DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
Panel Chair
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-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...
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-2003-01685
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-2003-01398
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
___________________________________________________________________ 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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-02682
During all open enrollment periods, members were advised by direct mail of their eligibility to make an election. It would be inequitable to those members who chose to participate when eligible and subsequently received reduced retired pay to permit this applicant an additional opportunity to provide SBP coverage. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2003- 02682 in Executive Session on 7 October...
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-2003-01370
Had the applicant elected spouse only coverage at the time of his retirement, coverage and costs would have been suspended upon the divorce. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 Jun 03 for review and comment within 30 days. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the...
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...