RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03065
                 INDEX CODE:       137.01, 137.04
            )    COUNSEL:  None

                 HEARING DESIRED:  No
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her deceased husband’s records be corrected to show  that  he  elected
spouse coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her deceased husband bought home a form, which she signed but she  was
never briefed on the SBP.  He was briefed that SBP costs would be  50%
of his retirement pay, which they agonized over before  declining  SBP
coverage.  She was told by an associate that  her  husband  must  have
been misbriefed because most people would not participate in  the  SBP
if they were required to pay 50%  of  their  retirement  pay.   A  SBP
counselor recently told her that the premium her  husband  would  have
had to pay would have been approximately 6.5% of his  retirement  pay.
If they were correctly informed during their  initial  briefing,  they
would have elected to participate in the program and  she  would  have
never signed the form declining coverage.

In support of her request, applicant  provided  a  copy  of  her  late
husband’s  DD  Form  2656,  Data  for  Payment  of  Retired  Personnel
(Corrected Copy), a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or
Discharge from Active Duty, a copy of his Certificate of Death, and an
Affidavit of Support.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The former member and the applicant were  married  on  22  July  1973.
Documents provided by the  Defense  Finance  and  Accounting  Service,
Cleveland Center (DFAS-CL),  reflect  that  the  member  declined  SBP
coverage prior to his 1 October  1993  retirement  and  the  applicant
concurred in the election.  The member died on 3 October 2002.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPTR recommends denial.  While the applicant’s claim that she
was  not  briefed  on  the  SBP  or  provided  the  correct  SBP  cost
information, the decedent’s SBP election form  maintained  by  DFAS-CL
reflects that the applicant provided her written concurrence and  that
her signature was witnessed by personnel  at  the  Military  Personnel
Flight (MPF) at Seymour Johnson  AFB  NC  on  23  September  1993.   A
corrected election means the original election was changed.  There  is
no indication that the staff at the Seymour Johnson MPF did not comply
with Air Force guidance that requires SBP counselors to mail a letter,
inviting the spouse to attend the member’s one-on-one briefing, or act
inappropriately in witnessing the member’s election, or obtaining  the
applicant’s concurrence.  It is incumbent upon each person, who  signs
a statement or contract, to understand the  implications  of  signing.
If the applicant had refused to sign the  form  because  she  did  not
fully understand the impact of her decision, she would  have  remained
eligible for SBP coverage, the same  protection  she  enjoyed  without
cost while the member served on active duty.   Further,  there  is  no
record the member submitted an election under  PL  105-261.   Had  the
member elected SBP coverage on the  applicant’s  behalf,  the  monthly
premiums would have been approximately $87 per month and the applicant
would be entitled to receive an SBP annuity of $735 until she  attains
age 62.  It would be inequitable to other widows, who  also  concurred
in their sponsor’s elections to decline coverage, to grant this  widow
another opportunity to obtain SBP coverage  after  the  death  of  the
member.

There is no evidence of Air Force error or injustice.

The DPPTR evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states that she was never briefed by  any  personnel  at
the MPF at Seymour Johnson AFB, NC and no  dollar  amounts  were  ever
discussed with her except by her husband based on his  briefing.   She
has submitted an affidavit of  support.   She  believes  that  several
mistakes were made by the SBP counselor.  Her husband’s pre-retirement
checklist states that he was required to complete DD Form  2656  prior
to receiving  SBP  counseling.   There  is  no  evidence  as  to  what
corrections were made on the DD Form 2656.   She  believes  that  many
retirees are misbriefed and she believes her husband’s records  should
be changed.   She  does  not  believe  her  husband  was  deliberately
misinformed, but rather a case of unfortunate circumstances.  Her



husband went to his grave believing he would have to give  up  50%  of
his retirement pay for SBP coverage.

Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

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 relief 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-
03065 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 29 Jul 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPTR, dated 14 Nov 03.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Nov 03.
   Exhibit D   Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.





                                   JOSEPH A. ROJ
                                   Panel Chair