RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01123
INDEX NUMBER: 137.04
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her husband’s records be corrected to show that he elected spouse
coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Her husband was not aware of all his retirement benefits. It
wasn’t until 1999, when a friend told them of all the privileges
she and her husband were entitled to, that they found out about
SBP.
In support of her request, applicant provided letters from the
Georgia War Veterans Nursing Home, and correspondence from her
Congressman.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The record reflects that the member was unmarried and declined SBP
coverage prior to his 12 February 1989 retirement, at age 60. He
had no eligible beneficiaries on the date he retired. The former
member and the applicant were married on 8 April 1995. The member
failed to submit a valid spouse election within the first year of
their marriage.
Information provided by the applicant reflects the retired service
member was deemed incompetent by nursing home standards on 23 Jan
02, and unable to handle his financial or other personal affairs.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPTR recommends denial. 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. Public Law 105-261, 17 Oct 98,
authorized a one-year open enrollment period (1 Mar 99 – 29 Feb
00), widely publicized in the Afterburner, for retirees to elect
coverage. There is no evidence the member was incapable of making
decisions on his financial and personal affairs during this recent
open enrollment opportunity. He could have elected coverage for
the applicant at that time, but failed to do so. SBP is similar to
commercial life insurance in that an individual must elect to
participate during the time prescribed by law and pay the
associated premiums in order to have coverage. Approval of this
request would provide the member and his wife an additional
opportunity to elect SBP coverage not afforded other retirees
similarly situated and is not justified.
The complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit B.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant states she had never been a military wife, therefore
would not have known some of the benefits she and her husband could
have utilized. A friend told her how to obtain medicines for her
husband at Ft. Gordon; and a doctor told her how she could get her
husband’s name on a waiting list for a Veterans Nursing Home.
During the open enrollment period (1 Mar 99 – 29 Feb 00), her
husband was retiring from his civilian job and moving to where she
was employed. It was also the time her husband was going through
extensive testing when it was determined he was in the early stages
of Alzheimer’s. She doesn’t remember seeing the Afterburner, and
up until now, wasn’t aware that the open enrollments were announced
in that periodical. She was told it would have been announced on
his pay stubs, she went through three years of end of year
statements, and the statement was not found. (Exhibit D)
___________________________________________________________________
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; 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. The member had two
opportunities to establish coverage in the applicant’s behalf,
prior to the first anniversary of their marriage and in the one-
year open enrollment period authorized by Congress (1 Mar 99 - 29
Feb 00). However, there is no evidence he made such an election.
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 Docket Number BC-2004-
01123 in Executive Session on 20 July 2004, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Roscoe Hinton Jr., Panel Chair
Mr. Michael J. Novel, Member
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Mar 04, w/atchs
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPPTR, dated 24 May 04
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 May 04
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 2 Jun 04
ROSCOE HINTON JR.
Panel Chair
They stated the laws controlling the SBP preclude a married member, who declined spouse coverage at the time of retirement, from providing SBP former spouse coverage following divorce unless Congress authorizes an open enrollment. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit B. 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...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR states Public Law (PL) 99-145, established on 8 Nov 85, required as of 1 Mar 86 spousal concurrence of the SBP election, if the election was providing less than maximum spouse coverage. He declined SBP coverage prior to his 1 Apr 88 retirement. There is no evidence that the servicemember made an election for spouse coverage during either open enrollment period.
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-2004-01225
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
Even though the applicant and the decedent were married at the time of his retirement (1 Apr 91), records indicate that the applicant’s valid concurrence in the decedent’s SBP election was obtained prior to his retirement. Subsequently, the decedent was eligible to provide coverage for the applicant during two SBP open enrollment periods authorized by Public Laws (PLs) 101-189 and 105-126 (1 Apr 92 – 31 Mar 93 and 1 Mar 99 – 29 Feb 00, respectively). We took notice of the applicant's...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01037
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR states Public Law (PL) 99-145, established on 8 November 1985, required as of 1 March 1986 spousal concurrence of the SBP election, if the election was providing less than maximum spouse coverage. According to the Defense Finance and Service - Cleveland Center (DAFS- CL) the servicemember elected full spouse and child coverage under SBP, but later submitted a corrected election to decline SBP...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02399
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: At the time of his retirement from the Air Force he elected child coverage under the SBP. If his daughter’s disability was diagnosed while she was otherwise eligible, the member could have elected coverage on her behalf during the initial open enrollment; however, there is no evidence such an election was submitted. We believe the applicant would have elected to provide coverage for his daughter...
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 | 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...