RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02492
INDEX CODE:137.00
(Deceased) COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her late-husband’s records be corrected to reflect he elected Survivor
Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage for her.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Due to her disability from the motor vehicle accident, she did not
know what she was signing.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Public Law (PL) 99-145 which was enacted on 8 November 1985 and which
became effective 1 March 1986, established the requirement to obtain a
spouse’s written concurrence in any election the servicemember may
elect under SBP when the election provides less than the maximum
spouse coverage. All married servicemembers who retired on or after 1
March 1986, must have spousal concurrence in SBP elections. Law has
established that SBP requires information be provided to
servicemembers and spouses concerning the options and effects of SBP
prior to the servicemember’s retirement.
The applicant and the servicemember were married and had children.
Prior to the servicemember’s 1 March 1995 retirement, he declined to
elect SBP coverage. The applicant signed and dated her concurrence
with her late-husband’s decision on 6 December 1994. The
servicemember died on 3 November 2002.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPTR states the applicant provided her written concurrence on
the DD Form 2656 declining SBP coverage. Furthermore, Military
Personnel Flight (MPF) personnel at Kelly AFB, TX witnessed her
signature and there is no evidence that the applicant was misled into
signing the DD Form 2656. It appears the technician at Kelly AFB
followed the required guidelines and procedures in processing the
servicemember’s SBP application.
AFPC/DPPTR finds no evidence of error or injustice and therefore,
recommends the requested relief be denied.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states she does
not have anything else to add. She can get affidavits from people who
have helped her fill out paper work since her head injury.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, 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 timely filed.
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 the recommendation of the Air
Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that
the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. The
applicant alleges that due to the injuries she sustained in a motor
vehicle accident she did not understand what she was signing. In this
respect, it is the responsibility of each person to ensure they
understand the effects of signing official documents. While we
empathize with the applicant’s circumstances; she forfeited her right
to an annuity when she signed the AF Form 1267 concurring with the
servicemember’s decision not to elect coverage. 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-
2003-02492 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 23 Jul 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPTR, dated 19 Aug 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Aug 03.
Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, undated, w/atchs.
DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01550
The letter also explained that if she agreed with her husband’s child only election, she must sign and date the DD Form 2656 in the presence of a notary or a Military Personnel Flight (MPF) representative, and the form must be returned before her husband’s retirement date or maximum spouse coverage and costs will take effect. The applicant’s wife signed the election form eighteen days after his retirement date, evidence that the letter was received, and her signature was notarized in...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01037
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR states Public Law (PL) 99-145, established on 8 November 1985, required as of 1 March 1986 spousal concurrence of the SBP election, if the election was providing less than maximum spouse coverage. According to the Defense Finance and Service - Cleveland Center (DAFS- CL) the servicemember elected full spouse and child coverage under SBP, but later submitted a corrected election to decline SBP...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01479
Since she elected maximum spouse coverage, her husband’s concurrence was not required. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR reviewed applicant’s request and recommends denial. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 3 June 2003, for review and response.
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-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...
Even though the applicant and the decedent were married at the time of his retirement (1 Apr 91), records indicate that the applicant’s valid concurrence in the decedent’s SBP election was obtained prior to his retirement. Subsequently, the decedent was eligible to provide coverage for the applicant during two SBP open enrollment periods authorized by Public Laws (PLs) 101-189 and 105-126 (1 Apr 92 – 31 Mar 93 and 1 Mar 99 – 29 Feb 00, respectively). We took notice of the applicant's...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01495
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. He did not complete the documents necessary to properly establish his retired pay account (including an SBP election form) until after his retirement date; therefore, spouse and child coverage based on full retired pay was established to comply with the law. 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...
However, it is noted that it is the responsibility of the retiring service member to elect the best coverage for his family; and that the spouse has the right to concur or nonconcur in the service member's decision in electing SBP. DPPTR, based on the evidence provided, recommends the request be denied. While we can sympathize with the applicant’s loss of her son and the resulting anguish she was suffering at the time she completed the SBP notification and concurrence form, AF Form 1267,...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01999
The member could have elected former spouse SBP coverage on the applicant’s behalf when he applied for commencement of his retired pay, but failed to do so. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 9 August 2002 for review and response within 30 days. After a thorough review of the evidence of...