Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01947
Original file (BC-2003-01947.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied


                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01947
            INDEX CODE:  110.01

            COUNSEL:  JENNIFER KIRKHART

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge date be changed from 31 Aug 97 to 3 Sep 97.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was not informed that in the event  he  divorced  his  spouse,  she
would not be eligible for military health benefits.  She  was  married
to him two days short of his 20 years of active service.  Had he  been
informed at the time that he was two days short of time  required  for
his spouse to be eligible for military health benefits, he would  have
changed his retirement date.

Applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  30  Aug  72.   He  was
relieved from active duty on 31 Aug 97 and  retired,  effective  1 Sep
97, in the grade of senior master sergeant.  He was credited  with  25
years and 1 day of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRRP recommended denial noting that the Uniform Retirement Date
(provided for under Section 8301, Title 5, United States  Code  (USC))
does not allow for nondisability service retirement to fall on a  date
other than the first day of  the  month.   To  grant  the  applicant's
request for two additional days of active duty,  his  retirement  date
would have to be extended to 1 Oct 97.

According to AFPC/DPPRRP, no injustices or irregularities occurred  in
the retirement process.  All actions by the applicant were  voluntary.
He did not have to retire on that date, but  rather  chose  to  retire
effective 1 Sep 97.  There are no provisions of law to allow  for  the
crediting of unearned service to retired military  personnel  for  any
purpose.  Further, to award the  applicant  enough  unserved  military
credit to qualify for the provisions of the law  would  be  unfair  to
other military retirees  who  subsequently  (several  years  following
military retirement) divorce and  yet  also  do  not  quite  meet  the
requirements for spousal benefits.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPRRP evaluation, with attachments, is at
Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSFR recommended denial.  They  noted  that  to  qualify  for  a
permanent  identification  (ID)  card  reflecting  full  benefits  and
privileges under the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection  Act
(USFSPA), the following eligibility criteria must be met:  (1) At  the
time of divorce, a  former  spouse  must  have  been  married  to  the
military member for at least 20  years;   (2)  the  member  must  have
performed 20 years of creditable service in determining eligibility to
retired pay; and (3) there must have been a  20-year  overlap  of  the
marriage occurring during the member's creditable service.

According to AFPC/DPSFR, a former spouse who at the  time  of  divorce
was married at least 20 years to a military member  who  performed  20
years creditable service in determining eligibility  to  retired  pay,
and had at least a 15-year overlap of marriage  occurring  during  the
member's creditable service, but less than 20 years, is entitled to an
ID card reflecting medical care benefits only.  The  date  of  divorce
for the former spouses qualifying under this provision of  the  USFSPA
determines the expiration date on the ID card.  If divorced prior to 1
Apr 85, the former spouse is entitled to a four-year renewable ID card
reflecting medical care benefits only.  A former spouse who meets  the
20-20-15 requirements but whose divorce occurred on or after 1 Apr  85
and on or before 28 Sep 88 is no longer eligible for an ID card.   The
former spouse legislation authorized ID card benefits  for  two  years
from the date of divorce or 31 Dec 88, whichever was later.  This time
has expired.  A former spouse divorced  on  or  after  29  Sep  88  is
eligible for medical care benefits one  year  from  the  date  of  the
divorce.  In all instances, the former spouse must not have remarried.
 If a former spouse is enrolled in an employer-sponsored health  plan,
no  medical  care  through  the  Uniformed  Services  is   authorized.
However, if the former  spouse  loses  the  employer-sponsored  health
plan, medical benefits will be reinstated.  Public law must change the
requirements mentioned above in order to qualify former spouses for an
ID card with full benefits and privileges.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSFR evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant  on  8
Aug 03 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

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.  The Board  took  notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, a  majority  of  the  Board  agrees  with  the  opinions  and
recommendations of the Air Force  offices  of  primary  responsibility
(OPRs) and adopt their rationale as the basis for its conclusion  that
the applicant has not been  the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of sufficient evidence that the  applicant's
retirement was involuntary, or,  that  he  was  not  properly  advised
regarding  his  former  spouse's  eligibility  for   military   health
benefits, a majority  of  the  Board  finds  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend  granting   the   relief   sought   in   this   application.
Notwithstanding this, if the applicant were to  provide  documentation
showing his marriage and divorce dates, further consideration  of  his
appeal may be possible.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the  panel  finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-01947 in Executive Session on 17 Sep 03, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
      Ms. Patricia Kelly, Member
      Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member

By  a  majority  vote,  the  Board  voted  to  deny  the  application.
Mr. Barbino voted to grant the appeal but did not desire to  submit  a
minority report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 May 03.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 22 Jul 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSFR, dated 5 Aug 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Aug 03.




                                   PEGGY E. GORDON
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR BC-2003-01947






MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                 FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant
had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and
recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their
conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their
recommendation that the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.





                                           JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                           Director
                                           Air Force Review Boards
Agency

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01439

    Original file (BC-2003-01439.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    Indeed, the Air Force’s error insured to the benefit of the applicant’s former spouse in that she erroneously received medical benefits for nearly 13 years. The applicant’s daughter indicates that it was only after several months of her mother informing the Air Force of what seemed to be a computer error at the time that the Air Force’s error was corrected. Her mother was informed and granted for the last 13 years the entitlement under the 20/20/20 program and then with four days notice,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9701741

    Original file (9701741.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    To adjust applicant's .retirement date would not: be - consistent with the intent of the law; : BS At the time of his retirement, the overlap of marriage and his creditablé service ‘in determining eligibility to retired pay was 19 years, 11 months, and 29 days. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected: to show .that he was not released from active duty on 31 August 1992.and: ‘retired for length ’ case...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01947

    Original file (BC-2003-01947.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS SUBJECT: AFBCMR Case of , AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-01947 After carefully reviewing the applicant’s request for reconsideration of his application to have his retirement date changed, and in view of the letter from his former spouse, I have approved the reopening of this case. The applicant requested a change to his retirement date, indicating his former spouse was ineligible for full benefits under...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9900444

    Original file (9900444.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Information provided by the applicant indicates that he and his former spouse were married on 17 May 1968. DPS stated, in part, that the applicant retired mandatorily on 1 March 1988, with 20 years and 12 days of active service. RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00973

    Original file (BC-2005-00973.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Air Force indicated the member and the applicant were married on 10 Aug 74 and the member elected spouse and child coverage based on full retired pay prior to his 1 Jul 97 retirement. NOVEL Panel Chair MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR) SUBJECT: AFBCMR Application of [APPLICANT] I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01017

    Original file (BC-2013-01017.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01017 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her former spouse’s records be changed to reflect their marriage date as 31 May 73, rather than 29 Sep 73, so that she would be eligible for TRICARE benefits under the 20/20/20 marriage rule. The applicant received benefits based on an error in...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03521

    Original file (BC-2002-03521.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03521 INDEX CODE: 137.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her late husband's records be corrected so that she may be eligible for a Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuity. They state that Public Law (PL) 98-525 permitted former spouses to submit a request to deem an SBP election change...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00962

    Original file (BC-2006-00962.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00962 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 31 SEP 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Applicant is the ex-spouse of the deceased former servicemember, who requests her former late husband’s records be corrected to reflect he made a timely election for former spouse coverage under the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9703182

    Original file (9703182.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    If neither the member nor the former spouse requests the election change during the one-year eligibility period, former spouse coverage may not be established thereafter. The member 97031 82 remarried 21 Jul90. Recommendation: Although there is no evidence of Air Force error, to preclude a possible injustice, we recommend partial relief: the member's record should be corrected to reflect that on 28 Jun 88 he elected to change SBP spouse and child -vera e to former spouse and child coverage...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00600

    Original file (BC-2003-00600.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    After consulting with military counsel, on 14 Jan 00, the applicant requested that he be discharged from the Air Force in lieu of trial by court-martial. Applicant did not have 20 years of service at the time of his discharge. While it is regrettable that his Air Force career, given the length and character of his service, came to such an inglorious end, we do not find sufficient evidence that the actions of his chain of command to approve his discharge in lieu of court-martial were in...