Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02163
Original file (BC-2003-02163.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02163
            INDEX CODE:  137.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her husband’s record be changed to show he elected to  participate  in
the Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

No certification of receipt verifying that the former member  declined
this benefit can be provided therefore, as his widow, she is  entitled
to receive his death benefits.

In support of her application, she provided a personal statement and a
copy  of  the  former  member’s  Certificate  of  Death.   Applicant's
complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The former member was eligible to participate in the Reserve Component
Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP) on 10 July 1991 when he was notified  he
had completed 20 satisfactory years of Federal service.  The  election
package was  sent  certified  and  signed  for  by  B----  G----  (the
applicant’s son) on 29 February  1992.   The  former  member  did  not
respond within the 90 days as required by law.  At the end of the  90-
day suspense, the former member was automatically enrolled  in  Option
A, “Deferred Election Until Age 60.”

The former member remained eligible to elect coverage under the  RCSBP
upon reaching age 60.  He died on 8 August 2000 prior to reaching  age
60.

During the 1 March 1999 to 29  February  2000  RCSBP  open  enrollment
season, members who had made no election or who had elected less  than
full coverage for their spouses were able to change their election  to
add or increase coverage.  The former member was sent a package to his
mailing address (the same address listed on this application).   There
is no evidence he made an election at that time.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPS states that the spouse of the former member  is  entitled  to
other benefits as the  unremarried  widow  of  a  retirement  eligible
member.  She  is  eligible  for  a  Commissary  Privilege  Card,  Base
Exchange and other base services.  When the former member  would  have
turned age 60, his spouse will become eligible to receive medical care
through the TRICARE Program.   There  may  also  be  benefits  she  is
entitled to through the Veterans Administration (VA).  ARPC encourages
her to contact the VA.

While ARPC sympathizes  with  the  spouse,  they  do  not  believe  an
injustice has occurred.  The former member failed  to  elect  coverage
when he was eligible.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The spouse of the  former  member  states  that  a  package  was  sent
certified mail and signed for by her 15-year-old son.   She  found  no
reference to this information and eligibility to  participate  in  the
RCSBP in her deceased husband’s records.  The former member maintained
tidy records.  She also periodically reviewed the  contents  of  their
locked safe for  important  papers  and  found  no  reference  to  his
military retirement.  In Title 10 U.S.C. Section A, “An individual who
does not elect to participate in the plan during  the  90  day  period
remains eligible.”   Unfortunately,  her  husband  died  and  did  not
collect his retirement.

In reference to item 4 stating that a second election package was sent
to their address, she states that  during  the  dates  indicated,  her
husband was extremely ill and she handled  all  mail,  correspondence,
bills, etc.  She did not receive any type of  package  concerning  his
retirement.

It is difficult for her  to  understand  that  a  denial  could  be  a
recommendation based upon  a  simple  form.   She  requests  that  her
husband’s record be corrected to show full elected  coverage  for  his
spouse under the RCSBP.

Applicant's response is attached at 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.   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-
2003-02163, 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 21 Jun 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, ARPC/DPS, dated 24 Jul 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Aug 03.
      Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 17 Aug 03.




                             DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
                             Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03589

    Original file (BC-2002-03589.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant’s daughter, in a letter dated 19 August 2003, informed this office the applicant died on 26 January 2003. At the time the servicemember was eligible to elect coverage there was no requirement, either by policy or statute to notify a spouse if the servicemember made no election for coverage. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02620

    Original file (BC-2003-02620.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 9 August 1999 he signed and returned a completed ARPC Form 123 - Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan Election Certificate, electing Option C - Immediate Annuity for spouse and child. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant provided a response, with attachments, which is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0103523

    Original file (0103523.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    There was no evidence that the service member made an election at that time. Therefore, based on the evidence provided they recommend denying the applicant’s request. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01117

    Original file (BC-2003-01117.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. During the RCSBP open enrollment, March 1999 to 29 February 2000, records indicate that the member was notified but did not respond within the 90 days as required by law. We therefore agree with the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02248

    Original file (BC-2003-02248.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    At the end of his 90-day suspense the applicant was automatically enrolled in Option C, “Immediate coverage for spouse.” ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ ARPC/DPS recommends denial. The RCSBP package that was sent to the applicant stated “if the completed ARPC Form 123 is not received at the Reserve Center or postmarked within 90 calendar days of receipt of this package at residence or current mailing address, the member is considered...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01714

    Original file (BC-2002-01714.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    They have no record the member made an election at either time. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The spouse of the former member states in October of 1991, the former member signed for the package explaining retirement benefits that he was to review and elect the option of coverage to be provided. She also read in the letter of 1 November 2002, that the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | 0201784

    Original file (0201784.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: Applicant’s counsel provided a response to the Air Force evaluation, which included another letter from the applicant, her son-in-law and a friend of the deceased military member. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02455

    Original file (BC-2003-02455.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no evidence he made an election at that time. The applicant was sent an open enrollment letter to his home address during the RCSBP open enrollment season, 1 March 1999 to 28 February 2000. During the RCSBP open enrollment season from 1 March 1999 to 28 February 2000, records indicate the applicant was notified.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0102373

    Original file (0102373.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP) information package sent to the former servicemember, when he was initially eligible to establish survivor coverage on the applicant’s behalf, specifically advised the member that his RCSBP election certificate had to be received by the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) within 90 days of receipt of the package at his home. A review of the evidence submitted does not reveal that the deceased member was provided inadequate information...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0100528

    Original file (0100528.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In reference to the advisory stating the former member failed to elect RCSBP when initially eligible in February 1997, counsel states that the opinion relies on the mailing of an election package to the former member, and the apparent lack of any response. After reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that...