RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01692
COUNSEL: NONE
(DECEASED SERVICE MEMBER)
HEARING DESIRED: NO
(APPLICANT)
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her spouses records be corrected to reflect:
1. His surname as rather than .
2. The effective date on his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of
the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, be changed to
reflect 1 Jan 72" versus 15 Apr 69.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The former service members DD Form 214 reflects he served on
active duty from 3 Mar 69 through 15 Apr 69 and was credited
with 1 month and 13 days of total active service. The former
service members signature in Block 32 on the DD Form 214
reflects his last name as
A similar appeal was considered and denied by the Board on
29 Nov 06. The Board determined that the evidence provided by
the former service member was insufficient to warrant the
requested relief. The evidence of record revealed his DD Form
214 accurately reflected his total active service. For an
accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding his
request, and the rationale for the earlier decision by the
Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit E.
By virtue of an DD Form 149, Application for Correction of
Military Record, dated 8 Nov 10, the former service member
requested reconsideration of his request to have his date of
separation changed from 15 Apr 69 to 1 Jan 72 (Exhibit F). On
12 Jan 10, the Board staff informed the applicant that his
request did not meet the criteria for reconsideration
(Exhibit G).
The former service members surname and signature on the DD Form
149 dated 8 Nov 10 reflects
The applicant via her congressional representative requested
reconsideration to have her spouses records corrected to
reflect his date of separation as 1 Jan 72 and his surname as
. In response, the Board staff informed the applicant
her request did not meet the criteria for reconsideration
(Exhibit H).
On 8 Feb 13, according to information provided by the applicant,
the former service member passed away.
By virtue of a DD Form 149 dated 22 Oct 13, with attachments,
the applicant requests reconsideration of her request to have
her late spouses records corrected to reflect his date of
separation as 1 Jan 72 and his surname as . (Exhibit I).
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. After again reviewing the evidence of record in support of
the portion of the applicants request to have her spouses date
of separation changed to reflect he served three years active
service, we find the evidence insufficient to override the
Boards original decision. After a thorough review of the
totality of the evidence submitted by the applicant on this
point, we are not convinced that corrective action is warranted.
The applicant has not provided any evidence showing the service
member served any additional active duty service other than what
is reflected on his DD Form 214. Therefore, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting
the requested relief.
2. Notwithstanding the above, sufficient relevant evidence has
been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice with
respect to the portion the applicants request to correct her
spouses surname to reflect rather than . In
this respect, we note the applicant provided a copy of the
service members birth and death certificates, which reflect his
surname as . As we have verified the social security
number reflected on the death certificate matches that reflected
in the deceased former members military personnel records, we
believe that a preponderance of the evidence supports corrective
action. Therefore, in view of the above, we recommend the
applicants records be corrected to the extent indicated below.
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to the DECEASED FORMER MEMBER be corrected to
show that his name is , rather than
.
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2004-01692 in Executive Session on 11 Dec 14 under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit E. Record of Proceedings, undated.
Exhibit F. DD Form 149, dated 8 Nov 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 12 Jan 10.
Exhibit H. Congressional Inquiry, dated 11 Jun 13.
Exhibit I. DD Form 149, dated 22 Oct 13, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00391
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was unjustly manipulated into signing divorce papers just prior to her husbands death by her ex-husbands son-in-law to deny her his SBP benefits. Upon retirement, he elected spouse only SBP coverage for his wife at that time. The law is very specific in that legal documentation must be provided that reflects the member agreed, or the court ordered, the member to establish former spouse coverage.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00391
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was unjustly manipulated into signing divorce papers just prior to her husbands death by her ex-husbands son-in-law to deny her his SBP benefits. Upon retirement, he elected spouse only SBP coverage for his wife at that time. The law is very specific in that legal documentation must be provided that reflects the member agreed, or the court ordered, the member to establish former spouse coverage.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 03362
The member and the applicant were allegedly married in Tijuana, Mexico on 8 Jun 82, and he elected spouse only coverage based on a reduced level of retired pay during the open enrollment authorized by Public Law (PL) 97-35 (1 Oct 81 30 Sep 82). The Air Force office of primary responsibility has recommended that we consider voiding the decedent's 23 Sep 82 election for SBP coverage for the applicant, suggesting that the "erroneous deductions of SBP premiums for spouse coverage be refunded...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04463
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit B. Service members were briefed and required to make an election prior to completing 18 years of service. The service member retired on 1 Jan 63.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04512
We took notice of the applicants 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 (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-04512 in Executive Session on 4 Aug...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04170
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04170 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The deceased former members records be corrected to reflect he made a timely election for spouse coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP), naming the applicant as the beneficiary. Public Law (PL) 92-425, effective 21 Sep 72, required the spouse...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03764
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR recommend that applicant’s request be denied and stated that there is no evidence of Air Force error or injustice, or merit in fact, nor basis in law to approve this case. Briefing material used at the time the member completed his RSFPP election clearly stated that “dependents acquired after you retire are not eligible to receive Family Protection Plan annuity payments,” payments would only...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03410
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: At the time of their divorce, 30 Nov 12, her deceased former husband did not take any action to convert his SBP coverage to former spouse coverage. Because the former member passed away within a year of his divorce to the applicant, there can be no competing beneficiary because a subsequent spouse cannot attain eligibility for SBP benefits in their own right until one year after the date of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04626
________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFFF recommends approval, stating, in part, there is no evidence of Air Force error in this case and absent a competing claimant, DPFFF recommends the decedent's record be corrected to reflect on 1 Feb 94, he elected to change SBP spouse to former spouse coverage based on full retired pay, naming the applicant as the former spouse beneficiary. Considering the applicant failed to execute a deemed...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-03676
The member’s widow is eligible to receive an SBP annuity of $412, but she has not submitted an application to date. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit B. Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. The widow of the service member indicated in a statement dated 25 Jan 06, that she recently completed and returned some forms sent to her by DFAS-CL.