RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00042
(Case 2)
INDEX CODE: 137.00, 137.01
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS:
Corrective action that would allow him to terminate spouse and child
coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
In April 2003, at the time of his initial out-processing, he elected
SBP coverage. He was put on medical hold, his retirement date was
changed, his out-processing was abbreviated and his SBP election was
not reaccomplished.
No supporting documents were submitted. The applicant’s complete
submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS)
reveals the applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date
(TAFMSD) as 13 June 1983. He was promoted to the grade of technical
sergeant (E-6), with an effective date and date of rank of 1 September
2000. His application for voluntary retirement for years of service
was approved and the applicant’s established date of separation (DOS)
was 31 July 2003, with a retirement date of 1 August 2003.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPTR recommends the application be denied. DPPTR states
that, on 6 March 2003, the applicant made a valid SBP election at
Maxwell AFB, AL, for spouse and child coverage based on full retired
pay, prior to his retirement. Since he elected maximum spouse
coverage, his wife’s concurrence was not required. Subsequent to the
applicant receiving a one-on-one SBP briefing, records reflect that
the SBP counselor at Maxwell AFB contacted his home on 18 July 2003,
prior to the applicant returning to Maxwell AFB, and stressed that it
was very important to return to the SBP office to amend his original
election form prior to his new date of retirement. The applicant did
not respond to the recommendation. The applicant may disenroll, with
his wife’s written concurrence, during the one-year period beginning
1 August 2005 as authorized by PL 105-85. There is no evidence of an
Air Force error or injustice in this case. The HQ AFPC/DPPTR
evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 13
February 2004 for review and response. As of this date, no response
has been received by this office (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
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. After a thorough review of the
evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are unpersuaded that
he should be allowed to terminate spouse and child coverage under the
SBP. His contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these
uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force. In
this respect, we note that the applicant had an opportunity to amend
his original election form prior to his new date of retirement, but
failed to complete the required form. We, therefore, agree with the
opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary
responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our
decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he
has suffered either an error or an injustice. In addition, we note
the applicant will have an opportunity to disenroll with his wife’s
written concurrence during the one-year period beginning on 1 August
2005 if he so desires. In view of the above and absent 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 14 April 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Roscoe Hinton Jr., Panel Chair
Mrs. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Member
Mr. Michael J. Novel, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00042.
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 Dec 03.
Exhibit B. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPTR, dated 6 Feb 04.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Feb 04.
ROSCOE HINTON JR.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02108
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR states that Public Law (PL) 99-145 requires spouses of married servicemembers to concur in writing, prior to the servicemember’s retirement, in SBP elections that provide less than full spouse coverage. DPPTR further states SBP elections can not be arbitrarily terminated as long there are eligible beneficiaries; however, PL 105-85, effective 18 November 1997, authorized retired servicemembers...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04100
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Public Law (PL) 99-145 requires spouses of married servicemembers to concur in writing prior to the servicemember’s retirement, in the SBP election that provides less than full spouse coverage. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR states the applicant contends the finance center did not have her husband’s information to process an election. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01550
The letter also explained that if she agreed with her husband’s child only election, she must sign and date the DD Form 2656 in the presence of a notary or a Military Personnel Flight (MPF) representative, and the form must be returned before her husband’s retirement date or maximum spouse coverage and costs will take effect. The applicant’s wife signed the election form eighteen days after his retirement date, evidence that the letter was received, and her signature was notarized in...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01495
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. He did not complete the documents necessary to properly establish his retired pay account (including an SBP election form) until after his retirement date; therefore, spouse and child coverage based on full retired pay was established to comply with the law. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00082
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He and his wife, during the retirement briefing, were led to believe they could not elect child coverage unless they elected spouse coverage. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02024
SBP premium were deducted from the servicemember’s retired pay until February 2003 when the finance center suspended the spouse portion of his SBP. We do not take issue with the applicant’s contention her divorce decree ordered her deceased former husband to provide former spouse coverage for her under the SBP, but he did not do so. However, in the absence of a showing the applicant is legally entitled to the relief sought or a waiver of entitlement from the current spouse, we conclude she...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00460
DPPTR states that if the Board’s decision is to grant relief, the member’s record should be corrected to reflect he declined spouse and child coverage effective 29 September 1982, and correction should be contingent upon the member’s waiving refund of any SBP premiums deducted before and after the death of his wife. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02796
The applicant did not add his spouse to his existing child coverage within the first year of their marriage. Furthermore, Item H1 clearly and specifically describes the post-retirement option: servicemembers, who at the time of retirement had no spouse or child, are eligible to elect SPB for these dependents within one year of acquisition. Furthermore, it was nearly five years after he retired that he got married and at the time of his marriage, he had no recollection of the one-year time...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03905
________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Retiree Services Branch, AFPC/DPPTR, reviewed this application and recommended denial stating there is no evidence of Air Force error or injustice. The member’s claim that he was not briefed on the one-year time period to add a spouse should he marry after retirement is without merit. DPPTR states that if the Board’s decision is to grant relief, the member’s record should be corrected to show that on...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01361
He was told both times that he would not be able to cancel the plan until 1 Apr 03. Disenrollments are effective upon receipt of a properly completed request by DFAS-CL, postmarked not later than the member’s third anniversary of receiving retired 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...