RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02399
INDEX NUMBER: 137.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to allow him to add his disabled daughter
to his reduced spouse only coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan
(SBP).
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
At the time of his retirement from the Air Force he elected child
coverage under the SBP. His daughter was excluded once she turned
18 years old, and he added his spouse. Her disability happened at
birth. He was not briefed, nor was he counseled that his daughter
could remain on his SBP due to her disability. This information
was just recently briefed to him.
In support of his request, applicant provided a doctor’s letter, a
letter from DFAS, and a DD Form 1172, Application for Uniformed
Services Identification Card.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was married and he elected child only coverage under
the Retired Serviceman’s Family Protection Plan (RSFPP) prior to
his 1 Aug 69 retirement.
The member elected spouse only SBP coverage based on a reduced
level of retired pay during the initial open enrollment (21 Sep 72
– 20 Mar 74) that followed the Plan’s implementation. All of his
children lost eligibility for the RSFPP prior to 1978.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPTR recommends denial. Members were required to be
briefed and make an RSFPP election prior to completing 19 years of
service. The RSFPP was a voluntary program fully supported by
participants and had no government subsidy. Eligible children
covered under the RSFPP remained eligible until age 18 or 23, if
unmarried and a full time student. A child, who is diagnosed to be
incapable of self-support prior to age 18 or 23 if an unmarried
full-time student, remains an eligible beneficiary for life. An
RSFPP beneficiary may receive both an RSFPP and an SBP annuity.
Public Law (PL) 92-425, which established the SBP on 21 Sep 72,
authorized an enrollment period for retired members to elect SBP
coverage. Members could either terminate or keep their RSFPP in
addition to electing or declining SBP.
The member’s claim that he elected child coverage under the SBP is
without merit. The applicant claims his daughter became
handicapped in 1975 at age 20, but he provided no evidence
verifying she was a full time student at that time. 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. SBP is similar to commercial life
insurance in that an individual must elect to participate and pay
the associated premiums in order to have coverage.
PLs 97-35, 101-189 and 105-261 authorized three SBP open enrollment
periods: 1 Oct 81 – 30 Sep 82, 1 Apr 92 – 31 Mar 93, and 1 Mar 99
– 29 Feb 00. Members were advised by direct mail of their
eligibility to make an election. The enrollment packets, as well
as the Afterburner, USAF News For Retired Personnel, published
during those timeframes, were sent direct mail to the
correspondence address members had provided to the finance center
and contained toll-free numbers and points of contact for retirees
to use to gain additional information. The open enrollments of 81-
82 and 92-93 did not permit participants with SBP spouse coverage
to add an eligible child.
A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is attached at
Exhibit B.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant provides a letter from his daughter’s current doctor
indicating her handicap occurred at birth. He also submits a
letter from Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford England, indicating
diagnosis and treatment of his daughter at the age of 10 days old.
He stated that at age five, his daughter was sent to a USAF
Hospital for evaluation of her convulsive state and cerebral damage
and possible surgery. The surgery was determined to be too
dangerous. At age 10, his daughter was scheduled for consultation
at Walter Reed Hospital; it was again determined surgery was too
dangerous, so she remained on medication.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.
___________________________________________________________________
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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice. After careful review of the
evidence provided, it appears the applicant’s daughter has been
permanently incapacitated and incapable of self-support since 10
days of age. In view of this, the applicant could have established
survivor coverage in her behalf under the Survivor Benefit Plan
(SBP). The applicant contends he was not briefed or counseled that
his daughter could remain a beneficiary of his SBP coverage due to
her disability. In this regard, we note the applicant elected to
participate in the SBP program during the initial open enrollment
following the Plan’s implementation, three years after his
retirement from the Air Force. We believe the applicant would have
elected to provide coverage for his daughter had he been aware that
she would have remained an eligible beneficiary for life based on
her disability. Therefore, we recommend that the records be
corrected as indicated below.
___________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:
a. His daughter, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, was incapable of self-
support and, on 21 Sep 72, he elected spouse and child coverage
under the Survivor Benefit Plan based on reduced retired pay.
b. Effective 1 Oct 72, he terminated his Retired Serviceman’s
Family Protection Plan coverage.
___________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2004-02399 in Executive Session on 2 December 2004, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Roscoe Hinton Jr., Panel Chair
Mr. Michael J. Novel, Member
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Jun 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPTR, dated 2 Sep 04.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Sep 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 30 Sep 04, w/atchs.
ROSCOE HINTON JR.
Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2004-02399
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the
authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat
116), it is directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:
a. His daughter, xxxxxxxxxxxxx, was incapable of self-
support and,on 21 Sep 72, he elected spouse and child Survivor
Benefit Plan coverage based on reduced retired pay.
b. Effective 1 Oct 72, he terminated his Retired
Serviceman’s Family Protection Plan coverage.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02539
PL 92-425, which established the SBP on 21 Sep 72, authorized an 18- month enrollment period (21 Sep 72 - 20 Mar 74) for retired members to elect SBP coverage, but were not required to return an SBP election form in order to decline coverage. RSFPP participants could have terminated previous RSFPP coverage, or retained it in addition to a new SBP election. There were no provisions in the laws during these open enrollment periods requiring the Services to notify spouses of retired members...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04931
DPFFF states that the applicants sister was over the age of 22 and his deceased father did not name her as a contingent disabled child beneficiary. 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 its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicants deceased father has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01439
Had the member elected SBP coverage based on full retired pay, the monthly cost would have been approximately $157 at the time of his death and the annuity would have been no less than $1,335. Furthermore, the Air Force may not pay an SBP annuity to the applicant because the member retired before the implementation of the SBP and he did not choose to provide SBP coverage on her behalf. It is possible that since the premiums were still being deducted from the member’s retired pay after the...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01176
However, there is no evidence the applicant elected coverage for his spouse during these time periods. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00953
Subsequently, Public Laws (PLs) 97-35, 101-189, and 105-261 authorized additional SBP open enrollment periods (1 Oct 81 – 30 Sep 82, 1 Apr 92 – 31 Mar 93, and 1 Mar 99 – 29 Feb 00, respectively) so that retirees could elect or increase SBP coverage. Similarly, the Air Force may not pay an SBP annuity to the applicant, because the member retired before the implementation of the SBP and he did not choose to provide SBP coverage for her when he was eligible to do so. Exhibit C. Letter,...
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 | CY2008 | BC-2008-01092
The applicant and member were married again on 14 Feb 75, however he did not request SBP coverage be reestablished on the applicant's behalf within the first year of their marriage, or during subsequent open enrollment periods. The SBP Election Certificate, provided by the applicant reflects he elected spouse and child SBP coverage on 11 Jan 80; however, the election was invalid because it was not completed during the authorized open enrollment period of one year. Members who were...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00460
DPPTR states that if the Board’s decision is to grant relief, the member’s record should be corrected to reflect he declined spouse and child coverage effective 29 September 1982, and correction should be contingent upon the member’s waiving refund of any SBP premiums deducted before and after the death of his wife. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to...
He could have elected former spouse SBP coverage for her during the 1992 open enrollment. However, spouse premiums could be terminated following divorce if the member additionally selected Option 4. He could have elected former spouse SBP coverage for her during the 92 open enrollment.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03764
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR recommend that applicant’s request be denied and stated that there is no evidence of Air Force error or injustice, or merit in fact, nor basis in law to approve this case. Briefing material used at the time the member completed his RSFPP election clearly stated that “dependents acquired after you retire are not eligible to receive Family Protection Plan annuity payments,” payments would only...