RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01685
INDEX CODE: 137.03
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to show he elected spouse and child coverage under
the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He requested SBP coverage for his current spouse in September 1998 at the
same time she received her ID Card.
The applicant provided no evidence in support of his appeal. The
applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was relieved from active duty on 31 December 1984 with 26
years and 15 days of service and retired in the grade of technical sergeant
effective 1 January 1985.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from
the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by
the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPTR recommends denial. DPPTR is of the opinion that there is no
evidence of Air Force error or injustice in this case. 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. DPPTR states that records reflect
the applicant excluded SBP coverage for his first eligible spouse by
choosing child only coverage prior to his 1 January 1985 retirement. His
choice to not provide SBP coverage on his first spouse terminated his
future eligibility to elect SBP coverage for any spouse he may acquire.
However, if a retiring member excludes an otherwise eligible dependent from
SBP’s protection when first entitled to make an election, coverage for any
person of that category (spouse, former spouse, or child) may only be
obtained during a Congressionally mandated open enrollment period. He and
his first spouse divorced on 8 November 1994. The applicant married his
current spouse on 18 September 1998. PL 105-261 authorized an SBP open
enrollment period (1 March 1999 - 29 February 2000), but there is no
evidence the applicant submitted an election to name his current wife as a
beneficiary. The DPPTR evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 17 June 2003, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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 probable error or injustice. After reviewing the evidence of
record, we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim of an
error or injustice. 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. In
addition, the applicant has provided no evidence that would lead us to
believe the SBP counselor provided misleading or inaccurate information at
the time of his retirement. 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 adopt their rationale as
the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of
an error or injustice. Accordingly, 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 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 in connection with AFBCMR
Docket No. BC-2003-01685:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Apr 03.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPTR, dated 12 Jun 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jun 03.
DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
Panel Chair
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...
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-2003-02682
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-2003-01599
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. ...
___________________________________________________________________ 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-2003-02187
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
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-2002-02546
________________________________________________________________ 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-2003-00076
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the applicant was required by law to submit a written request in order to terminate RSFPP coverage. 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...
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...