Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02620
Original file (BC-2003-02620.doc) Auto-classification: Denied


                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02620
            INDEX CODE:  137.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her spouse retired from the Air  Force  Reserves  on  23  April  1999  after
serving 29 years in the Army National Guard, Army Reserves,  and  Air  Force
Reserves.  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.  The  Air  Force
Personnel Center (AFPC) informed the applicant that the form  is  not  shown
in their computer  system.   Her  spouse  died  on  22 February  2002.   She
recently located the ARPC Form 123 and sent a copy to AFPC.   She  indicates
that it is obvious that her spouse wanted  her  to  receive  some  financial
assistance, in the unlikely event of his death.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The election package was sent by certified mail and was signed  for  by  the
applicant on 15 July 1999.  At the end of the 90-day suspense on 12  October
1999, the servicemember was automatically enrolled  in  Option  A,  deferred
election until age 60.

_________________________________________________________________




AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPS recommended denial.  They stated that the applicant indicated  that
her husband accomplished the ARPC Form 123.  However, they  have  no  record
of receiving the form.  The applicant is entitled to other benefits  as  the
unremarried widow of a retirement  eligible  member.   She  is  eligible  to
utilize the Commissary, Base Exchange and other  base  services.   When  she
reaches the age of 60, she 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).

The evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant provided a response, with attachments, which is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission  in  judging  the  merits  of  the  case;  however,  the
majority of the Board agrees with the opinion and recommendation of the  Air
Force and adopts their rationale as the basis for our  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the victim of  an  error  or  injustice.   The  RCSBP
election package was sent by certified  mail  and  was  signed  for  by  the
applicant on 15 July 1999.  It appears that  no  election  was  received  at
ARPC from the  servicemember  during  the  90-day  suspense  period.   As  a
result, at  the  end  of  the  90-day  suspense  on  12  October  1999,  the
servicemember was automatically enrolled  in  Option  A,  deferred  election
until age 60.  The servicemember died on 22 February 2002 at the age of  58.
 While the applicant claims  her  spouse  accomplished  the  ARPC  Form  123
unfortunately, there is no record of ARPC receiving the form.  It  is  noted
that servicemembers were strongly encouraged to return their  election  form
by certified, return receipt mail; however, the majority finds  no  evidence
that the servicemember did  this.   The  majority  believes  that  there  is
insufficient evidence that it was the servicemember’s  intent  to  elect  to
participate in the RCSBP.  Therefore, in the  absence  of  evidence  to  the
contrary, we find no compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief
sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

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-
02620 in Executive Session on 30 September and 23 October  2003,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member
                 Mr. Mike Novel, Member

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial.  Mr. Novel voted to  grant
the applicant’s request and does not wish to submit a Minority Report.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 July 2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, ARPC/DPS, dated 20 August 2003, w/atch.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 August 2003.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 25 September 2003
                 w/atchs.




                       DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
                       Panel Chair



AFBCMR BC-2003-02620





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-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-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 | 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-2003-02163

    Original file (BC-2003-02163.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ 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. 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...

  • 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 | 0002845

    Original file (0002845.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02845 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Applicant is the ex-spouse of a former service member, who requests corrective action that would entitle him to a Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP) annuity. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...

  • 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-2003-02263

    Original file (BC-2003-02263.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. The package clearly identified the 90-day suspense and there is no evidence applicant made an election at that time. 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 their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.

  • 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...