RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02108
                       INDEX CODE:  137.00

                       COUNSEL:  None

                       HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be allowed to terminate his spouse and  child  coverage  under  the
Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When he retired he did not want to elect SBP, but the personnel office
forced him to take SBP because his wife was living in another state.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant and D. were married on 24 April  1982.   On  14 February
2002, the applicant elected spouse and child coverage  under  the  SBP
based on full retired pay prior to his 1 April 2002 retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPTR states that Public Law  (PL)  99-145  requires  spouses  of
married  servicemembers  to  concur   in   writing,   prior   to   the
servicemember’s retirement, in SBP elections that  provide  less  than
full spouse coverage.  The concurrence must be notarized or  witnessed
by an SBP counselor to be valid.  If the servicemember fails  to  make
an election prior to his retirement, the  Defense  Finance  Accounting
Service-Cleveland Center (DFAS-CL) will establish SBP coverage at  the
maximum level for all eligible beneficiary(ies) to comply with law.

DPPTR further states SBP elections can not be  arbitrarily  terminated
as  long  there  are  eligible  beneficiaries;  however,  PL   105-85,
effective 18  November  1997,  authorized  retired  servicemembers  to
terminate their SBP coverage between the 24th and 36th month following
their retirement.  The former servicemember must complete the DD  Form
2656-2, with the spouse's signed notarized consent.  In order for  the
termination to be valid, the request has to  be  postmarked  no  later
than the servicemember’s third anniversary of receiving  retired  pay.
The termination would take effect the month following receipt by DFAS-
CL.  When terminating SBP the member is not entitled to  a  refund  of
premiums and is barred from reentering SBP.

The applicant’s contention that he was forced  to  take  SBP  coverage
when he retired is without merit.  The  fact  he  and  his  wife  were
geographically separated did not prevent  his  declining  or  electing
reduced SBP coverage.  If he chose to  elect  coverage  that  provided
less than the maximum level, the SBP counselor could have obtained his
spouse’s concurrence via mail.  Also, a copy  of  the  SBP  Report  of
Individual Person (RIP) that he signed, acknowledged he understood the
options and effects of his actions pertaining  to  his  SBP  election.
Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the  servicemember  to  elect
the coverage which best meets the needs for his family.  The applicant
may disenroll from SBP with his wife’s written notarized  concurrence,
during the one-year period which began 1 April  2004.   DPPTR  further
states to  approve  the  applicant's  request  would  provide  him  an
opportunity not  afforded  to  other  retirees.   They  recommend  his
request be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 13 August 2004, for review  and  response.   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 an error or an injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the
applicant’s complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion and the recommendation of  the  Air
Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our  conclusion  that
the applicant has not been  the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.
Essentially, the applicant alleges when he retired he  was  forced  to
make an SBP election because his wife was  living  in  another  state;
however, the fact the  applicant  and  his  wife  were  geographically
separated did not prevent him from declining or electing  reduced  SBP
coverage.  In fact, if  the  applicant  had  elected  less  than  full
coverage for his spouse, it would have been the responsibility of  the
SBP  counselor  to  obtain   her   concurrence   through   the   mail.
Additionally, the applicant signed the Report  of  Individual  Person,
acknowledging he  understood  the  options  and  effects  of  his  SBP
election.  The applicant has not established to our satisfaction  that
he was forced in making an  SBP  election.   Furthermore,  it  is  the
responsibility of each servicemember to elect the  SBP  coverage  that
best suits his family situation.   We  further  note  that  under  the
provisions of Public Law 105-85, the applicant will have one  year  to
disenroll from SBP commencing 1 April 2004, provided  he  obtains  his
spouse’s written concurrence.  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-
2004-02108 in Executive  Session  on  24  September  2004,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
                       Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Member
                       Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Jul 04.
      Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPTR, dated 9 Aug 04.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Aug 04.




                             ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
                             Panel Chair