RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00339
INDEX CODE: 137.04
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Corrective action be taken to enable him to change his Survivor
Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage from child only to spouse and child.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
When he originally elected SBP coverage he understood that if he
should ever marry, he would be able to change his election to cover
his wife. His children are now grown, he is married, his premiums are
current and he would like for his wife to have the benefit. He did
not know that he would not be able to change his election in the event
of his marriage.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a copy of his
marriage certificate.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Records indicate that, prior to his 1 April 1989 retirement, the
applicant (who was married at the time of his election) elected child
only coverage based on full, retired pay. As the law requires, his
wife concurred in his election. Defense Enrollment Eligibility
Reporting System (DEERS), reports he was married twice prior to
becoming married to his third wife on 22 December 2001. If married,
he was eligible to add a spouse to his child only coverage during two
SBP open enrollment periods, 1 April 1992 through 31 March 1993 and 1
March 1999 through 29 February 2000. There is no evidence he made any
election changes during the open enrollment periods.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPTR recommends denial. DPPTR does not challenge the
applicant’s admitted misunderstanding of the beneficiary exclusion
feature of SBP; however, had he elected spouse only SBP coverage at
the time of his retirement, coverage and costs would have been
suspended upon the date of his divorce. Coverage would have been
reinstated on the first anniversary of his marriage to each subsequent
spouse. He offers no explanation of his failure to provide SBP
protection during his intervening marriage. Additionally, issues of
The Afterburner, News for Retired Air Force Personnel, were routinely
mailed to the applicant’s correspondence address on file at the
finance center. Copies of The Afterburner, during the open enrollment
periods, contained points of contact for additional SBP information.
DPPTR states that SBP coverage is similar to commercial life insurance
in that an individual must elect to participate and pay the associated
premiums in order to have coverage. It would be inequitable to those
members, who chose to elect spouse coverage when eligible and
subsequently received reduced retired pay, to provide an additional
opportunity for the applicant to change his SBP election.
DPPTR’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 2
April 2004 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no
response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case
including his contention that he misunderstood SBP policies; 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. He had multiple opportunities to make the changes he is
now requesting and failed to do so. Ample information appears to be
available to military retirees in the public domain regarding the
procedures and requirements surrounding SBP changes and/or elections.
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-
2004-00339 in Executive Session on 20 July 2004, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 Jan 04, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPTR, dated 31 Mar 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Apr 04.
ROSCOE HINTON JR.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02286
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: At the time of his retirement, he was not married and elected child only SBP coverage. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR states a servicemember, who is unmarried at retirement and later marries, may elect coverage for a newly acquired spouse, as long as the election is made before the first anniversary of the marriage. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01225
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was not informed that he had to add his present wife to the SBP within one year of marriage. DPPTR’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant’s spouse responds to the advisory opinion and states that they were married in 1998 and made a trip to Keesler AFB to get ID cards, enroll in...
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...
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-2004-01123
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02546
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was unaware of the time constraint of one year from the date of his marriage to select an SBP for his wife. The applicant and his spouse married on 31 May 1997; however, he failed to request SBP coverage for her within the first year of their marriage. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02681
He received a response in September 2003, informing him the request he submitted was not received until after the authorized open enrollment period. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit B. After his first marriage ended, he remarried in February 1998; however, his current spouse is not eligible to receive RSFPP because the marriage occurred after the applicant retired.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01398
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR indicates that the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) was established by Public Law (PL) 92-425 on 21 September 1972, authorizing a one-year open enrollment period for servicemembers to elect coverage. However, if the Board recommends granting the request, the servicemember’s record should be corrected to show the servicemember elected SBP spouse only coverage based on full retired pay effective 21...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01282
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant was unmarried and elected child only SBP coverage based on full retired pay prior to his 1 October 1992 retirement date. Records reflect the applicant and N--- married on 13 April 1993, but he failed to elect SBP coverage for her within the first year following their marriage. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the...