Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00293
Original file (BC-2004-00293.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00293
            INDEX CODE:137.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her former late-husband’s records be corrected to reflect  he  elected
former spouse coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The divorce decree ordered the servicemember to maintain the applicant
as the beneficiary for SBP.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant and the servicemember were married on 15 July 1961.  The
servicemember elected, prior to his 1 March  1978  retirement,  spouse
and child coverage under the SBP  based  on  full  retired  pay.   The
servicemember and the applicant were  divorced  on  18 December  1987.
The divorce decree ordered the servicemember to maintain the applicant
as the beneficiary on his military pension with a full,  complete  and
sole  right  of  survivorship.   Neither  the  servicemember  nor  the
applicant submitted a valid election for former spouse coverage within
one year following their divorce.  SBP premiums were deducted from the
servicemember’s retired pay until June 1989 when the  Defense  Finance
and Accounting Service (DFAS) retroactively suspended the coverage and
issued a refund of the premiums.  The servicemember married  C.  on  3
July 1990.  He died on 4 January 1996.  His widow  (C.)  is  receiving
the annuity.

The applicant submitted an earlier application requesting  her  former
late-husband’s records be  corrected  to  reflect  he  elected  former
spouse coverage on her behalf.  DPPTR based on previous guidance  from
the Board returned the application without action on 24 February  2004
and recommended the applicant seek correction  through  civil  action.
(Exhibit B).

However, upon further review of the request, the applicant’s case  was
reopened.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPTR indicates that since the request involves two potential SBP
beneficiaries, no recommendation is provided.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 12 August 2004, the Board staff forwarded the applicant  copies  of
memorandums  from  HQ  USAF/DPPTR  and  HQ  USAF/JAA  which  will   be
considered in the processing of her application (Exhibit D).

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and  provided  copies
of documents indicating the servicemember was not complying  with  the
established court order (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 filed.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice.  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.  This is indeed regrettable.  However, since neither
the applicant nor her  deceased  former  husband  took  the  necessary
actions to ensure she was provided former spouse  coverage  under  the
SBP within the one-year period in which they could have  done  so,  it
appears that the applicant has no  legal  entitlement  to  the  relief
sought.  It appears by operation of law, the  widow  of  the  deceased
former member is his legal beneficiary and we do not find the  failure
of the deceased former member to comply with the terms of the  divorce
decree sufficient to  perpetuate  an  injustice  against  the  current
spouse.  This is especially true since the applicant could have timely
taken the necessary actions to  ensure  she  would  get  the  coverage
agreed to in the divorce decree without the assistance or  concurrence
of her former deceased husband.   We  are  not  unsympathetic  to  her
dilemma.  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 has failed to sustain  her  burden
of establishing she is the victim of either  an  error  or  injustice.
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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2004-00293 in Executive  Session  on  24  September  2004,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
                       Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Member
                       Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Apr 02, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPTR, dated 24 Feb 04, w/atchs.
      Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPTR, dated 16 Jul 04.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, 12 Aug 04, w/atchs.
      Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, undated.




                             ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
                             Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02024

    Original file (BC-2004-02024.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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-2004-00978

    Original file (BC-2004-00978.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The divorce decree ordered the servicemember to provide former spouse coverage for her under the SBP, but neither the servicemember nor she was aware of the one-year requirement to submit an election for former spouse coverage. Neither the servicemember nor the applicant made an election for former spouse coverage within one-year following their divorce. The applicant reviewed the Air Force...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03233

    Original file (BC-2003-03233.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Counsel states that, prior to the former member’s retirement from the Air Force, he elected SBP coverage for “spouse and child.” On 29 December 1983, the member and applicant divorced and their divorce decree incorporated a settlement agreement wherein the applicant would receive “all (100%) of the Husband’s Survivor benefits that can be paid to a former spouse.” The Defense Finance and Accounting...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01375

    Original file (BC-2004-01375.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    DPPTR adds that should the applicant provide the pertinent documentation, it would be appropriate to change the record to reflect on the day following the date of divorce, he elected to change his SBP coverage to former spouse coverage based on previous reduced level of retired pay and contingent on recoupment of applicable premiums. DPPTR’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01168

    Original file (BC-2003-01168.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    She states her divorce decree did not address the SBP annuity because her counsel advised her that once the member began receiving retired pay that neither the “…condition of the annuity nor the beneficiary could be changed.” She is writing after 30 years because she recently found out the SBP plan could apparently be changed after the receipt of benefits. DPPTR states the law in effect at the time of the applicant’s divorce did not allow retired members to provide SBP coverage to former...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-01626

    Original file (BC-2007-01626.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    If there were not a competing eligible beneficiary, or that beneficiary would consent to the change via a notarized statement, he would recommend correcting the record. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D The deceased member’s widow provided a notarized statement stating in part, that she and her deceased husband had an understanding that the ex-wife (who is the applicant), would receive the SBP benefits. KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2007-01626 MEMORANDUM FOR THE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200517

    Original file (0200517.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    There were no provisions in the law at that time to notify spouses if the servicemember did not elect coverage. There is no evidence that the servicemember elected SBP during any of the authorized open enrollments. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Apr 02.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00823

    Original file (BC-2004-00823.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    The law in effect at the time of the applicant’s divorce did not allow retired members to provide SBP coverage even if they wished to voluntarily continue their former spouse’s eligibility. The fact that the member paid spouse premiums until 1987 is not in itself evidence of his intent to provide coverage on the applicant’s behalf. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00611

    Original file (BC-2004-00611.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    AFPC/DPPTR states there is no evidence of an Air Force error; however, to preclude a possible injustice, they recommend the member’s record be corrected to reflect that on 9 May 1989 he elected former spouse coverage based on a reduced level of retired pay. On 21 July 2004, this office received a letter from the former spouse’s counsel stating that on 27 July 1989, he sent a copy of the Divorce Decree and Property Settlement Agreement to the Air Force. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-00516

    Original file (BC-2003-00516.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    There are two mechanisms provided by law for changing SBP coverage from spouse to former spouse, and both must be exercised within the first year following the divorce. DPPTR recommends the applicant’s records be corrected to reflect he elected to change his SBP coverage from spouse to former spouse coverage based on reduced retired pay, naming B. as former spouse beneficiary A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit B. The applicant submitted a notarized statement dated 22...