RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02682
INDEX CODE: 137.01
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Retired Serviceman's Family Protection Plan (RSFPP) be changed to
spouse coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuity.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He did not receive adequate information to make a decision. He has
paid $18.95 for a payment of $114.82 per month and at 73 years old his
wife would never start to recover the initial payout. He does not
recall ever being notified of the option to change to SBP.
In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was married on 15 December 1949 and elected spouse and
child coverage under the Retired Serviceman’s Family Protection Plan
(RSFPP) prior to his 1 June 1969 retirement. He declined SBP
coverage during the initial open enrollment (21 September
through 20 March 1974) that followed the Plan’s implementation. His
children lost eligibility for the RSFPP in January 1982, and he did
not elect SBP coverage during the three open enrollment periods.
The former member had three opportunities to elect SBP coverage, but
failed to do so. PLs 97-35, 101-189 and 105-261 authorized three SBP
open enrollment periods: 1 October 1981-30 September 1982, 1 April
1992-31 March 1993, and 1 March 1999-29 February 2000, respectively.
During all open enrollment periods, members were advised by direct
mail of their eligibility to make an election. The enrollment
packets, as well as the Afterburner, USAF News for Retired Personnel,
published during those timeframes, were sent by direct mail to the
correspondence address members had provided to the finance center and
contained
toll-free numbers and points of contact for retirees to use to gain
additional information.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPTR recommends denial. They state the applicant’s claim
that he did not have adequate information to make a decision is
without merit. The record reflects he was provided the Plan’s initial
enrollment material and he declined SBP coverage at that time. There
is no evidence he submitted an election during later open enrollments.
It is and was each retiree’s responsibility to ensure they understand
the provisions of the SBP as they apply to their individual situation
and to contact plan administrators if they don’t understand. SBP is
similar to commercial life insurance in that an individual must elect
to participate and pay the associated premiums in order to have
coverage. It would be inequitable to those members who chose to
participate when eligible and subsequently received reduced retired
pay to permit this applicant an additional opportunity to provide SBP
coverage. Retroactive costs approximate $42,500.
The DPPTR evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 5 September 2003, for review and response. As of this
date, this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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. After a thorough review of
the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not
persuaded that the releif requested should be granted. Applicant's
contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions,
in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the
rationale provided by the Air Force. 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
his burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice. In
view of the above and absent of persuasive 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 Docket Number BC-2003-
02682 in Executive Session on 7 October 2003 under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
Mr. Mike Novel, Member
Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Aug 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPTR, dated 28 Aug 03.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Sep 03.
DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00076
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the applicant was required by law to submit a written request in order to terminate RSFPP coverage. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that relief should be granted. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board...
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...
The RSFPP election form provided by the applicant reflects he elected spouse and child coverage with Option 4. However, if the Board recommends granting the request, the decedent’s record should be corrected to show RSFPP spouse and child coverage based on one-half of his retired pay was established effective 1 June 1970. We therefore agree with the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that her late husband’s intent not to extend...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-00038
Public Law (PL) 92-425, which established the SBP on 21 September 1972, authorized an 18-month enrollment period for retired members to elect SBP coverage. There were no provisions in the laws during either of these open enrollment periods requiring the Services to notify a spouse if the member did not enroll. 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...
Public Law (PL) 92-425, which established the SBP on 21 September 1972, authorized an 18-month enrollment period for retired members to elect SBP coverage. There were no provisions in the laws during either of these open enrollment periods requiring the Services to notify a spouse if the member did not enroll. 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...
He could have elected former spouse SBP coverage for her during the 1992 open enrollment. However, spouse premiums could be terminated following divorce if the member additionally selected Option 4. He could have elected former spouse SBP coverage for her during the 92 open enrollment.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C) . Available Master Personnel Records C. Advisory Opinion D. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion E. Applicant's Response DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR FROM: HQ AFPCIOPPTR 550 C Street West Ste 11 Randolph A f 6 TX 78150-471 3 SUBJECT;...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01282
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant was unmarried and elected child only SBP coverage based on full retired pay prior to his 1 October 1992 retirement date. Records reflect the applicant and N--- married on 13 April 1993, but he failed to elect SBP coverage for her within the first year following their marriage. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the...