RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00645
INDEX CODE: 137.04
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Corrective action be taken to permit him to provide Survivor Benefit
Plan (SBP) coverage for his wife.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was not aware that he had to report his marriage to the Defense
Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) within one year of his marriage.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided copies of his
Retiree Account Statement for August 2003, certificate of marriage, a
response from DFAS regarding his earlier attempt to cover his wife,
and his DD Form 2656, Data for Payment of Retired Personnel.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was not married, had no eligible children, and declined
SBP coverage prior to being placed on the Permanent Disability Retired
List, effective 8 June 2000. On 23 December 2001, he married but
failed to submit a valid spouse election within the first year of his
marriage. On 14 January 2004, he faxed a request to DFAS – Cleveland
requesting his wife be covered by SBP. The request was denied.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPTR recommends denial. 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.
In fact, the January 2002 issue of The Afterburner, published within
the applicant’s one-year time limit, provided specific guidance of how
to obtain SBP coverage for his wife. 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. Approval of this application would provide the applicant an
additional opportunity to elect SBP coverage not afforded other
retirees similarly situated and is not justified.
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 9
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 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
including his claim that he was unaware of the one-year time limit he
had to inform the proper authorities of his marriage and request
coverage for his new spouse; 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. Ample
information appears to be available to military retirees in the public
domain regarding the procedures and requirements surrounding SBP
elections. 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-
2004-00645 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 23 Feb 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPTR, dated 7 Apr 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Apr 04.
ROSCOE HINTON JR
Panel Chair
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-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-2004-00339
_________________________________________________________________ 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-2004-01123
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 | 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-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-2004-00233
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-2004-02286
_________________________________________________________________ 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-2004-02681
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 | 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...