RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02699
INDEX CODE: 137.04
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to permit him to elect spouse coverage under the
Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His leave and earnings statement (LES) reflects, “No SBP election is
reflected on your account.” The statement on his LES leads him to believe
that his election for SBP is still open.
In support of his application, the applicant provided a personal statement,
a copy of his request to Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) with
attachments, and a copy of an excerpt from the Afterburner newsletter. The
applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant retired from the Air Force Reserve on 20 April 1998 at the
age of 60, in the grade of lieutenant colonel. The applicant declined SBP
coverage effective 20 April 1998, because he was unmarried and had no
dependent children. The applicant married on 25 September 1999. On 15
October 2000, the applicant sent a request to DFAS, designating his wife as
the beneficiary to his arrears of pay in the event of his death.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from
the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by
the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPTR recommends denial. DPPTR states that a member, who is unmarried
at retirement, may elect coverage for a spouse acquired after retiring;
however, the election must be made before the first anniversary of the
marriage. If a member fails to make an election before then, SBP coverage
for that person or another person of that category may be elected only if
Congress authorizes an open enrollment period.
DPPTR states that the applicant declined SBP coverage when he retired
because he was unmarried and had no dependent children. The applicant
later married; however, failed to submit a valid spouse election within the
first year of their marriage. It is DPPTR’s opinion that approval of this
request would provide the applicant an additional opportunity to elect SBP
coverage not afforded other retirees similarly situated and is not
justified. The DPPTR evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant believes his application is properly stated and reasonable.
He wishes to provide SBP coverage for his wife and is willing to pay all
back premiums. The applicant’s rebuttal is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
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 error or injustice. After reviewing the evidence of record,
we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim of an error or
injustice. Evidence provided indicates the applicant declined SBP coverage
on 20 April 1998, when he retired from active duty. On 15 October 2000,
the applicant requested to provide SBP coverage for his spouse after he
married; however, his request was not made before the required one-year
anniversary date of that marriage. In addition, the applicant has provided
no evidence that would lead us to believe that the SBP counselor provided
misleading or inaccurate information at the time of his retirement.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 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.
Accordingly, 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 this application 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 in connection with AFBCMR
Docket No. BC-2003-02699:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Aug 03, with attachments.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPTR, dated 28 Aug 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Sep 03.
Exhibit E. Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 26 Sep 03.
JOSEPH A. ROJ
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00998
___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The member was married at the time of his retirement on 1 Jul 71. Other than his own assertions, we find no evidence has been presented to show the applicant submitted a valid request to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service-Denver Center to establish survivor coverage for his spouse within the first year of their marriage. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00023
The DPSFCM evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 16 April 2004 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). We note that the Air Force office of primary responsibility for SBP coverage recommends providing relief for that part of the applicant’s request concerning SBP coverage, while the Air Force office of primary...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00670
He did not elect coverage for his former wife during the 72-74, 81-82 or 92-93 open enrollments and she died 29 November 1997. The amount of the buy-in was based upon the earliest date the member was eligible to elect coverage, but did not. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states that he did receive an Afterburner or enrollment packet with...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02894
The laws controlling the SBP do not permit the applicant to provide coverage for his second wife now, or at any other time, unless Congress mandates an open enrollment period. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: He argues that he was not briefed on the policy concerning election of SBP spousal coverage and the suspension of that portion of the coverage after...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01072
Microfiche entries reflect in March 1989, the applicant’s request to change voluntary former spouse coverage to spouse coverage was processed, naming his second spouse as the eligible spouse beneficiary. Evidence provided indicates the applicant chose to elect spouse SBP coverage in March 1989, changing it from former spouse coverage. The applicant has not provided any evidence that he submitted a termination request under Public Law 105-85, allowing members a one-year opportunity to...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03385
The member and Constance married on 12 June 1992, but he failed to elect SBP coverage for her within the first year following their marriage. Absent a valid election within the first year of his marriage, the applicant could have elected coverage for his wife during this period, but he failed to do so. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 21...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00233
He requested SBP spouse coverage in September 2003 and was informed he could not elect spouse coverage due to the one- year time limit. Although the applicant contends he was not aware of the one-year time limit, the Afterburner, News For USAF Retired Personnel, informed retired servicemembers of the requirement to elect coverage within the first year of marriage for a newly acquired spouse. In this respect, a member who is not married at the time of retirement and marries later may elect...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00225
Retirees were provided a one-year period from the date of marriage for the first spouse acquired after 21 Sep 72. There is no evidence he elected SBP coverage during the initial enrollment for a previous wife, during the first year of marriage for his current wife, or during either of the open enrollment periods. DPPTR states that the member offers no compelling evidence that justifies extending him a fourth opportunity to provide SBP coverage for his wife.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00401
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR states that a participant’s spouse automatically becomes an eligible beneficiary on the first anniversary of the marriage unless, before that date, a valid election to not resume the coverage under the provisions of PL 99-145 is sent to the finance center. The applicant submitted a valid request to reinstate SBP coverage on R--- ’s behalf within the time permitted, changed his mind about...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01123
While the applicant claims that the member was unaware of all his retirement benefits, issues of the Afterburner, News for USAF Retired Personnel, were routinely mailed to the member’s correspondence address he provided to the finance center, reminding retirees of their SBP options when marrying after retirement. He could have elected coverage for the applicant at that time, but failed to do so. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES...