RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01225
INDEX CODE: 137.04
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Corrective action be taken to enable him to provide Survivor Benefit
Program (SBP) coverage for his spouse.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was not informed that he had to add his present wife to the SBP
within one year of marriage. He believed that his marriage status was
enough to qualify his wife for SBP benefits.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided copies of his
marriage license, certification of SBP briefing, DD Form 2656, Data
for Payment of Retired Personnel, a letter asking that his SBP
coverage be stopped and his payments refunded, and select excerpts
from his SBP payment record.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was unmarried and elected child only coverage based on
full, retired pay prior to his 1 July 1995 retirement. He was married
on 1 August 1998 but failed to make an election to add his spouse to
his existing child only coverage within the first year of their
marriage.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPTR recommends denial. DPPTR notes the applicant included a
signed copy of his SBP briefing sheet, which, by his signature
indicates he was properly briefed on the options and effects of the
plan. DPPTR also notes other sources of current SBP information such
as The Afterburner, News For USAF Retired Personnel. In this
instance, a copy of The Afterburner, published seven months before his
marriage, reminded retirees of the opportunity to enroll their newly
acquired spouse in the Plan within the first year of marriage. DPPTR
states it would be contrary to the letter and intent of the law, as
well as inequitable, to grant this applicant an additional opportunity
not afforded to other members similarly situation. There is no
evidence of error or injustice.
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 the Defense Eligibility Enrollment System (DEERS),
and accomplish any paperwork necessary to make sure the Air Force knew
the retired member had remarried. She states her husband and she
asked whether or not, as a newly married couple, they had to fill out
any other paperwork. She notes that they were not directed to do
anything else and they assumed that an Air Force installation would
tell a retired airman what needed to be done to provide proper
coverage for his newly acquired family. She contends a newsletter
never notified them they needed to submit or add any information. She
states her husband served his country and it is sad that it all has to
boil down to money to sustain a surviving spouse. She states it would
be a struggle to come up with the funds to back pay the system for the
time they have been married, but that burden should be borne by them.
She notes that she and other retirees in this situation should not be
penalized for this oversight if they pay their premiums.
_________________________________________________________________
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 spouse’s rebuttal to the advisory opinion. 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 signed his SBP certification sheet at retirement
indicating he understood post-retirement procedures. Additionally,
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.
_________________________________________________________________
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-
2004-01225 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 11 Apr 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPTR, dated 17 May 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 May 04.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 24 May 04.
ROSCOE HINTON, JR
Panel Chair
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 | 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-2004-02286
_________________________________________________________________ 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-2004-00233
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-2004-00339
_________________________________________________________________ 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-2004-00645
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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-01599
It would be contrary to the letter and intent of the law, as well as inequitable, to grant this applicant an additional opportunity not afforded to other members similarly situated. 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 and adopt their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ...
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-2004-01123
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-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...