Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2000-00961-2
Original file (BC-2000-00961-2.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                                 ADDENDUM TO
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2000-00961

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

This request for reconsideration of the application for  the  correction  of
the records of E--- J---  (Deceased)  was  submitted  by  Mrs.  A.  E.  J---
(former spouse).


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, she  requests  the  military
records of her former spouse be corrected to show  she  is  entitled  to  an
annuity under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) program.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The former member and the applicant were married on  29  November  1968  and
divorced on 22 May  1995.   The  divorce  decree  indicates  that  both  the
applicant and the former member agreed to “execute  the  appropriate  waiver
relinquishing the wife’s rights to any  benefits  she  may  be  entitled  to
under the Survivor’s Benefit Plan from the Air Force  Retirement/Pension  of
the Husband.”  On 8 June 1995, the  former  member  sent  a  letter  to  the
Defense Finance and Accounting Service  (DFAS)  requesting  cancellation  of
his SBP coverage.  In the HQ AFPC/DPPTR advisory opinion  of  19  May  2000,
they indicated the former  member’s  SBP  premiums  were  suspended  and  he
received a refund of premiums paid  past  the  date  of  divorce  (refer  to
Exhibit C to the Record of Proceedings).  The former member died on 8  March
1997.

A similar appeal was considered and denied by the Board on  5 October  2000.
A summary of the evidence  considered  and  the  rationale  of  the  earlier
decision by the Board is set forth in the Record of Proceedings  at  Exhibit
F.

On 10 January 2002, in response to a congressional  inquiry,  in  behalf  of
the   applicant,   the   AFBCMR   denied   the   applicant’s   request   for
reconsideration of her application (Refer to Exhibit G).

In the  applicant’s  most  recent  request  for  reconsideration,  submitted
through her congressman, she contends that the signature on the 8 June  1995
letter canceling her SBP coverage is not the former member’s signature.   To
support this assertion, the  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement,  a
statement from a Forensic Investigator who opines that the signature on  the
letter in question is not the signature of the  applicant’s  former  spouse,
and copies of additional correspondence concerning the issue  under  review.
Since the  Forensic  Investigator  is  not  a  board  certified  handwriting
analyst, he suggested obtaining  a  military  handwriting  analysis  of  the
document in question for its signature validity.  The  applicant’s  complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit H.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request for  an  analysis  of  the  former  member’s
handwriting through the Air Force Office of Special  Investigation  (AFOSI),
the Forensic  Document  Division  of  the  US  Army  Criminal  Investigation
Laboratory (CILA-FD) completed their analysis and submitted  their  findings
to AFOSI on 1 September 2004.  The CILA-FD findings revealed that  “E.  J---
probably wrote the original of the questioned “E--- J---” signature.”   This
complete evaluation is at Exhibit J.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Having been provided the CILA-FD  analysis,  through  her  congressman,  the
applicant submitted a personal statement for the  Board’s  review  in  which
she notes the somewhat inconclusive findings provided by AFOSI and  requests
the Board also consider the analysis findings  she  provided  from  Forensic
Investigations  Unlimited.   The  applicant’s  complete   submission,   with
attachments, is at Exhibit L.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After again reviewing this application and the evidence provided in  support
of the appeal, we remain unpersuaded that the records  of  applicant’s  late
husband should be corrected to show she is entitled to an annuity under  the
Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).  In her most recent submissions, the  applicant
asserts the signature on the 8 June 1995 cancellation letter to  DFAS  is  a
forgery.  Although  the  applicant  provided  an  affidavit  by  a  licensed
private detective indicating it is his belief the signature  is  a  forgery,
we note that this individual is not a board certified  handwriting  analyst.
We  are  not  unsympathetic  to  the  applicant’s  plight  and  applaud  the
extraordinary efforts on her part to support her case.  On the  other  hand,
in fairness to the system, our decision must be based on  the  preponderance
of the evidence submitted and of record.   In  this  regard,  a  handwriting
analysis conducted, through the Office of Special Investigations  (OSI),  by
the Forensic Document  Division,  Department  of  the  Army,  concluded  the
applicant’s former spouse “probably” wrote the signature  in  question.   In
addition to the cited letter, we noted the applicant’s SBP  eligibility  was
waived in the divorce decree.  In view of the foregoing and in  the  absence
of a showing the applicant has a  legal  right  to  the  relief  sought,  we
believe she has failed to sustain her burden of establishing  the  existence
of either an error or an injustice.  Therefore, we have no  basis  on  which
to favorably consider the requested relief.
_________________________________________________________________

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 reconsidered  upon  the  submission  of  newly  discovered  relevant
evidence not considered with this application.
_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 2 December 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Roscoe Hinton Jr., Panel Chair
      Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Member
      Mr. Michael J. Novel, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with  AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2000-00961.

      Exhibit F.  Record of Proceedings, dated 6 Oct 00,
                with exhibits.
      Exhibit G.  Congressional Inquiries, with atchs, dated 7 Feb
                01 and 20 Dec 02, and AFBCMR draft replies.
      Exhibit H.  Congressional Inquiry, dated 22 Aug 03, with
                atchs.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 Mar 04, with atchs.
      Exhibit J.  OSI/CILA-FD Report, dated 1 Sep 04.
      Exhibit K.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 5 Oct 04.
      Exhibit L.  Letter from Member of Congress, dated 4 Nov 04,
                with atchs.




                                   ROSCOE HINTON JR.
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9801377

    Original file (9801377.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant alleges that her signature on AF Form 694, “Data for Payment of Retired Air Force Personnel,” the concurrence portion for an SBP election concurring with less than full spouse SBP coverage, is forged. Although it is unfortunate there is no original document for comparison with regard to the applicant’s signature, we found no persuasive evidence that she did not sign the document at the time of her late husband’s retirement which appears to be properly witnessed. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 9801377A

    Original file (9801377A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    She further asserts that, to date, the Air Force is unable to validate any of the documentation used to deny her an entitlement to SBP. _________________________________________________________________ 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 reconsidered upon the submission...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00319

    Original file (BC-2003-00319.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR states the applicant submitted a notarized letter alleging the signature on the copy of an AF Form 1267, Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) Notification and Concurrence, is not her signature and that she did sign an SBP election form for annuity for 55 percent of the servicemember’s retired pay. If the servicemember had elected full spouse coverage, the applicant’s signature would not have been...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | 0100569A

    Original file (0100569A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The separation agreement (incorporated into the divorce decree) ordered the former member to elect former spouse coverage at the earliest time possible, but the applicant failed to submit a deemed election request within the required time limit. A summary of the evidence considered and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board is set forth in the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit E. The applicant’s 12 October 2001 request for reconsideration of her application was denied by the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03377

    Original file (BC-2003-03377.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of her request, applicant provided documentation associated with the investigation into the allegations against her, documentation associated with her administrative demotion action, and documentation associated with her referral EPR. The IG analysis concluded the preponderance of evidence supported the conclusion the adverse administrative actions taken against her were based solely on the evidence supporting the action and not because protected disc1osures had been made to the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9801559

    Original file (9801559.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 21 January 1997, the AMW commander recommended the RILO request be denied and, if accepted, the applicant be given a UOTHC discharge. The applicant was discharged with a UOTHC discharge effective 10 January 1998, resignation for the good of the service in lieu of CM for other offense, after 9 years, 4 months and 29 days of active duty. The SAFPC found that the depression was not the cause of the misconduct for which the CM charges were pending but was, rather, a result of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9700066

    Original file (9700066.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    It was her husband who initiated the actions required to obtain dependent benefits. After summarizing the processing of the Article 15, her military record, and her contentions and the evidence provided to support her appeal, JAJM indicated that although the applicant's explanation of her marital difficulties is compelling, the evidence submitted with her request does not fully 4 AFBCMR 97-00066 support her position. The records indicate that the applicant's military service was...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012843

    Original file (20130012843.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant provides a DD Form 2656-2, dated 19 January 2007, which shows the FSM elected to terminate the SBP. Section IV (Spouse Concurrence) of this form shows a signature of the applicant's same name concurring with the FSM's election. The ABCMR does not investigate cases, but relies upon the evidence in the FSM's record and that provided by applicants.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060008071

    Original file (20060008071.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 15 January 1996, the applicant submitted a request to DFAS, based on a proceeding of divorce and ratified by a court order signed and dated 17 October 1995, to be deemed the former spouse of the FSM for the purpose of survivor benefit coverage under the SBP. d. upon information and belief the SBP benefits have not been continued and the applicant had been unable to obtain military records to confirm the same; and e. the applicant requested the Court issue an order requiring release of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-1995-00482A

    Original file (BC-1995-00482A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    While we are not unsympathetic to the applicant’s situation, in the absence of any evidence which would lead us to believe that she took any action which could be construed as meeting the statutory requirements for a request for a deemed election for former spouse SBP coverage, a majority of the Board concludes that the applicant has failed to establish the existence of error or injustice. BARBARA A. WESTGATE Chair MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF...