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
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01439
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,...
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
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...
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
___________________________________________________________________ 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
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 spouses 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
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
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...
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
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...