RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00512
INDEX CODE: 137.01
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Corrective action be taken that would allow him to change his Survivor
Benefit Plan (SBP) election to extend coverage to his spouse.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He is not aware of an error or an injustice, he is only trying to get
his current spouse covered by SBP. His first wife died in 1989 and he
remarried on 12 September 1990. He is looking for help in determining
what records are necessary to get his wife covered. He retired from
the service in 1978 and at that time he did not feel he had a need for
SBP. He didn’t even think of SBP until recently. He has begun
receiving some of his retired pay (less than half) and can now afford
to contribute to SBP. He is 72 year’s old and would like to see his
wife covered before he kicks off.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a personal
statement and a copy of his current marriage certificate.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Finance records show that he declined SBP coverage prior to his
1 October 1978 retirement effective date. He married on 29 September
1990 but failed to notify the finance center of the change to his
marital status. He did not request SBP coverage to be established on
his current wife’s behalf. He had two opportunities to establish SBP
coverage from 1 April 1992 through 31 March 1993 and again from
1 March 1999 through 29 February 2000. He did not make an election at
either opportunity.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPTR recommends denial. While it is unfortunate the applicant
failed to establish SBP coverage for his wife in a timely manner, it
was his responsibility to ensure he exercised SBP options that
provided the level of protection best suited to his family’s
individual circumstances when he was entitled to elect that
protection. He had two opportunities to elect coverage for his wife,
after their marriage, but failed to do so. 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:
All he is asking for is a yes or a no regarding whether or not he can
enroll his current wife in SBP. As he was receiving Veterans
Administration (VA) disability benefits and, as a result, not
receiving his retired pay, he did not consider SBP as an option in his
case as he had no retired pay to pay for it. If he has to wait for an
authorized enrollment period then so be it. Otherwise he’d like the
Board to know that he served 26 years of his life in the Air Force
that included a tour in Korea and a tour in Vietnam. He is proud of
his service and would do it all again without hesitation as he loves
his country and all that it stands for. He’s just really tired of
getting screwed out of all the benefits he is due.
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 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;
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 two
opportunities to establish SBP coverage for his current spouse and
failed to take advantage of either. Therefore, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been
shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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-
2004-00512 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 15 Feb 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPTR, dated 6 Apr 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Apr 04.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Apr 04.
ROSCOE HINTON JR
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00339
_________________________________________________________________ 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. 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. We took...
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-2004-00645
DPPTR stated that although the member claims he was unaware of the required one-year time limit, 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 reminded retirees of their SBP options when marrying after retirement. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00293
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, 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00998
___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The member was married at the time of his retirement on 1 Jul 71. Other than his own assertions, we find no evidence has been presented to show the applicant submitted a valid request to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service-Denver Center to establish survivor coverage for his spouse within the first year of their marriage. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04282
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-04282 INDEX CODE: 137.04 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His record be changed to reflect the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage he selected was for spouse and dependent children and not spouse only. He states the counselor recommended he select spouse and children coverage (as it...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00233
He requested SBP spouse coverage in September 2003 and was informed he could not elect spouse coverage due to the one- year time limit. Although the applicant contends he was not aware of the one-year time limit, the Afterburner, News For USAF Retired Personnel, informed retired servicemembers of the requirement to elect coverage within the first year of marriage for a newly acquired spouse. In this respect, a member who is not married at the time of retirement and marries later may elect...
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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-00670
He did not elect coverage for his former wife during the 72-74, 81-82 or 92-93 open enrollments and she died 29 November 1997. The amount of the buy-in was based upon the earliest date the member was eligible to elect coverage, but did not. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states that he did receive an Afterburner or enrollment packet with...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00024
DFAS records indicate that the former service member declined SBP coverage prior to his 1 July 1978 retirement. The member had an opportunity to provide coverage for the applicant during the SBP open enrollment periods authorized by Public Laws (PLs) 97-35 (1 Oct 81 – 30 Sep 82) and 101-189 (1 Apr 92 – 31 Mar 93), but there is no evidence he made such an election. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and...