Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03953
Original file (BC-2003-03953.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03953
            INDEX CODE:  137.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His record be changed to show he elected to participate in the Reserve
Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP) with an election based on  the
full amount of retired pay.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He doesn’t recall ever seeing the package; even  if  the  package  had
been received, it seems highly unfair that he was given only  90  days
to respond or have to wait until age 60 to apply.  He did 30 years and
3 months with the Air Force  Reserves.   His  age  is  49  and  on  18
September 2003 he suffered a stroke, chances are he won’t make  it  to
60.

In support of the appeal, applicant submitted a copy  of  his  Reserve
order.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the Military Personnel Data  System,  the  applicant  was
eligible to participate in the RCSBP on 9 February 1993, when notified
he completed 20 satisfactory years of service.  There is  no  evidence
that the applicant made an election at that time.  At the end  of  the
90-day suspense on  10  May  1993,  the  applicant  was  automatically
enrolled in Option A, Deferred Election Until Age 60.

During the RCSBP open enrollment season, 1 March 1999  to  28 February
2000, the applicant’s official records indicate he  was  notified  at:
XXXXXXX, Buffalo, NY XXXXX.  Open enrollment is for members  who  have
no coverage or less than full coverage for their spouses and were able
to elect or increase coverage.  There is no record that the  applicant
made an election at that time.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPS states that the initial package was sent  certified  mail  to
the applicant’s home address and was signed for by  R---  H---  on  17
July 1993.  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.   Therefore,
they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

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 RCSBP  is
allowed.  He asks then, why is that his signature for the  receipt  of
the package not required?  One would think that an important  document
such as this would require the retiree’s signature only.   He  states,
again this is his entitlement.  He has earned it!!!  He chooses Option
“C”.

Applicant's complete response 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 timely filed.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the  existence  of  error  or  injustice.   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
and adopt their rationale as the basis for  the  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.   As
stated, the applicant had two opportunities to enroll and did not sign
up.  Therefore, in the absence of 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  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:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Nov 03, w/atch.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, ARPC/DPS, dated 9 Dec 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Dec 03.
      Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 26 Dec 03.




                             JOSEPH A. ROJ
                             Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01246

    Original file (BC-2003-01246.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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-2003-01300

    Original file (BC-2003-01300.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2002 | 0201470

    Original file (0201470.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He did not make an election during open enrollment season because he thought he already had coverage under the election he made in 1994. The Board notes the applicant did not elect RCSBP coverage within the required timeframe and was automatically enrolled under Option A. The applicant was notified on two occasions of his eligibility to enroll in RCSBP but did not elect coverage either time.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02519

    Original file (BC-2003-02519.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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. As a consequence, the applicant was advised by AFPC on 26...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01245

    Original file (BC-2003-01245.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2004 | BC-2003-01618

    Original file (BC-2003-01618.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03298

    Original file (BC-2002-03298.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no evidence he made an election at that time. DPS states that members must complete an election within 90 days of receipt of the RCSBP package. He states that his minor daughter receipted for the package, and that he was deeply involved in a career change and in the process of relocating during the exact time the package was received.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03718

    Original file (BC-2003-03718.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant elected SSBP coverage on 3 April 1992 for option C (immediate annuity) for spouse only with 20% supplemental. Evidence provided indicates the applicant chose to elect spouse SSBP coverage on 3 April 1992 for Option C (immediate annuity) for spouse only with 20% supplemental. The applicant has not provided any evidence that would lead us to believe that the SSBP information provided, at the time of her election, was misleading or inaccurate.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02049

    Original file (BC-2003-02049.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant’s attorney states that the core issue is whether or not the applicant received the entitlements package setting forth the options available to him under the RCSBP. The date is clearly in error because it would be a factual impossibility for the election package to be received and signed for prior to when the package was sent. In this case, because the applicant...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-00078

    Original file (BC-2002-00078.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: When he remarried on 12 Mar 99, he advised ARPC of his change in marital status and was never counseled by ARPC that he had a year to cancel his SBP benefit coverage on his new spouse. Member stated he contacted ARPC after his remarriage and was not counseled that he had one year to cancel his RCSBP benefit. The ARPC/DPS evaluation is at Exhibit...