RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02519
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:
She was not made aware of, nor did she concur with her spouse’s non-
election of the RCSBP program.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The servicemember was advised by ARPC in a letter dated 31 May 1983, that
he was eligible to participate in RCSBP and that he had 90-days from the
date of the letter to submit his application. There is no evidence in the
record the servicemember made an election within the 90-day period.
The applicant was advised by AFPC in a letter dated 26 September 1983, that
an RCSBP application had not been received at their headquarters from her
spouse and there was no RCSBP coverage in effect. The servicemember’s
election had been deferred to age 60. The applicant signed for this letter
on 5 October 1983.
During the open enrollment season from 1 April 1992 through 31 March 1993,
the servicemember was advised of his opportunity to elect RCSBP coverage.
There is no evidence in the record he made an election at that time.
The servicemember died on 7 February 1998.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ARPC/DPS recommended denial. They indicated that the applicant claims she
was unaware of the RCSBP option her husband selected. A certified letter
was sent 26 September 1983 from their Retirement Branch notifying the
applicant that her spouse did not make an election which she signed for.
If the decision is to grant the relief sought, the servicemember’s record
should be corrected to show he elected full, immediate coverage for his
spouse (Option C), based on full-retired pay under the RCSBP, effective 20
December 1983.
The evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 17 October 2003, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant for review and response within 30 days. As of this date, no
response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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. The applicant contends that she was
not made aware of, nor did she concur with her spouse’s non-election of the
RCSBP program. However, we note that the Air Force, in accordance with
established procedures, advised the servicemember in a letter dated 31 May
1983, that he was eligible to participate in RCSBP and that he had 90-days
from the date of the letter to submit his application. ARPC has no record
of receiving an election from the servicemember. As a consequence, the
applicant was advised by AFPC on 26 September 1983, that an RCSBP
application had not been received from her spouse, there was no RCSBP
coverage in effect, and the election had been deferred to age 60. The
applicant signed for this letter on 5 October 1983. The servicemember had
another opportunity to elect coverage during the 1 April 1992 through 31
March 1993 RCSBP open enrollment period but, apparently failed to do so.
While it is unfortunate the servicemember failed to make an election, we do
not believe that the applicant has been the victim of an injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of an error or an 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-
02519 in Executive Session on 27 January 2004, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
Ms. Leslie E. Abbott, Member
Mr. Mike Novel, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 March 2003, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, ARPC/DPS, dated 14 October 2003, w/atchs.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 October 2003.
JOSEPH A. ROJ
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01246
There is no evidence he made an election at that time. At the end of his 90-day suspense the applicant was automatically enrolled in Option A, “Deferred election until age 60.” ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ ARPC/DPS reviewed applicant’s request and recommends denial. Additionally, during the RCSBP open enrollment season from 1 March 1999 to 28 February 2000, records indicate the applicant was notified.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01245
DPS has no record showing the applicant made an election at this time. _________________________________________________________________ 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. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01300
The election package was sent by certified mail and signed for by Mrs. D--- K--- on 2 September 1994. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPS states that during their RCSBP open enrollment season, March 1999 to 28 February 2000, their records indicate that the applicant was notified at his home of record. They have no record that the applicant made an election at that time.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03953
According to Title 10 U.S.C., Section 1448 (a)(2), members must complete an election within 90 days of receipt; otherwise the member remains eligible to make an election at age 60. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states that the entitlements were meant for the retiree to receive and only his signature on the application for the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01183
Since his election was deferred until age 60, he would have been eligible to make his RCSBP election choice in April 2005. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case and sympathize with her positiion; 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 | BC-2002-03589
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. ...
The member remained eligible to make the election at age 60. 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. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant’s Congressman statement, dated 31 Jul 02.
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01652
The member remained eligible to make the election at age 60. 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. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant’s Congressman statement, dated 31 Jul 02.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00045
ARPC has no record of receiving an election request from the servicemember. The applicant, as a widow of a retirement eligible servicemember, apparently is eligible for other benefits, such as the Commissary, Base Exchange and Tricare. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01618
He was never informed that the 20 percent election would result in three times the amount being deducted for premiums from his retirement pay. 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. ...