RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01653
INDEX CODE: 137.04
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His participation in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) be terminated.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He elected SBP coverage during his last marriage and was not
informed that he could only cancel the insurance if he was
divorced. He has been separated from his wife for over a year and
no longer feels obligated to provide her coverage.
In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a copy of his Retiree
Account Statement, effective 2 Jan 03.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Based on facts provided by the Air Force, applicant and his former
spouse were married and he elected spouse and child coverage based
on full-retired pay prior to his 1 Jan 89 retirement. Coverage was
suspended following their divorce on 9 Nov 92. The record reflects
the applicant remarried on 12 Mar 94 and divorced on 20 Apr 95.
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. On 5 Feb 01,
DFAS-CL processed member’s request to update his records to reflect
on 6 Apr 00 he acquired an eligible child under the SBP.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPTR reviewed this application and recommended denial.
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. Written
requests must be received within the first year following
remarriage.
The statute ensures that qualified, newly acquired spouses are
afforded the protection of the SBP regardless of the member’s
failure or delay in requesting the coverage. This automatic
feature of the SBP was adjusted by PL 99-145, but required that the
applicant take specific action to prevent his new spouse from
becoming the eligible SBP beneficiary. Applicant had ample
resources available to learn about his opportunity to not extend
SBP coverage following remarriage. Information and points of
contact were published in the Afterburner, News for USAF Retired
Personnel, reminding retirees of their options upon remarriage.
They advise participants to contact the finance center immediately
upon gaining or losing a potential beneficiary. Retired members
are personally responsible to ensure they obtain or exempt their
dependents’ entitlement to military benefits.
While the applicant acted in a timely manner to notify DFAS-CL to
update his SBP to reflect his newly acquired ward, it is reasonable
to expect him to have also acted properly to inform the finance
center he did not wish to extend SBP coverage to his third spouse.
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 17 Jan 03 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 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 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. 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 AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2003-01653 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 7 May 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPTR, dated 12 Jun 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jun 03.
DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
Panel Chair
At that time, RCSBP coverage and premiums were suspended. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR states that SBP spouse coverage is suspended when the spouse loses eligibility. 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 has not been the...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant's wife submitted a letter stating if they had been counseled adequately they would have not chosen to resume SBP coverage. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 25 September 2001 under the provisions of AFI 36- 2603: Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2001-01891A
The applicant remarried on 9 September 1992, but failed to inform the Finance Center that he did not want to extend SBP coverage before the first anniversary of his marriage. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s request, HQ AFPC/DPPTR, reviewed the applicant’s most recent submission. With regard to terminating the reinstated SBP coverage, Public...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03158
The applicant and the member divorced on 3 February 1983. Effective 1 March 1986, Public Law (PL) 99-145 permitted retiring members to select SBP coverage for a former spouse with the same cost as coverage options as a spouse. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states that SBP was set up to protect the spouse and this is why a spouse’s signature is...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03158
The applicant and the member divorced on 3 February 1983. Effective 1 March 1986, Public Law (PL) 99-145 permitted retiring members to select SBP coverage for a former spouse with the same cost as coverage options as a spouse. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states that SBP was set up to protect the spouse and this is why a spouse’s signature is...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Air Force stated that the applicant was married and elected child only SBP coverage based on full retired pay prior to his 12 May 83 disability retirement. If a member withdraws under this provision, there is no immediate refund of premiums; however, applicable spouse premiums paid by the member can be refunded to the spouse following the member’s death. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-03506
The applicant and current spouse were married on 2 July 1995 and he took no action to prevent SBP coverage from being established on her behalf. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Retiree Services Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPTR, reviewed this application and recommended denial stating there is no evidence of Air Force error or injustice. DPPTR states that if the Board’s decision is to grant relief, the member’s record should be corrected to...
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-2003-01685
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...
___________________________________________________________________ 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. ...