RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02452
            INDEX CODE:

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show  he  elected  Survivor  Benefit  Plan
(SBP) coverage for his wife.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In March 1987, during his retirement briefing  at  the  Hill  AFB,  UT
Consolidated Base Personnel Office (CBPO), he  was  informed  that  it
would be beneficial for him to designate his daughter (L--- A--- D---,
his youngest dependent) as the beneficiary for the SBP.   He  was  not
informed at that time that when L--- turned 21 or 22  years  old  that
the SBP would completely stop and that his wife would not be  eligible
to receive any pay  and  allowances  upon  his  death.   Had  he  been
properly informed he would not have chosen L--- as the beneficiary and
would have chosen  his  wife  D---  at  the  time  of  the  retirement
processing.  He was not informed by anyone of  this  cutoff  and  this
fact went unnoticed until he recently received  a  revised  retirement
pay statement indicating the SBP deduction had stopped.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant and D--- were married and finance  records  indicate  he
elected child only SBP coverage based on full-retired pay prior to his
1 April 1987 retirement.   His  wife  concurred  in  his  election  as
required  by  law.   His  monthly  premium  for  child  coverage   was
approximately $10; in contrast, costs for spouse  and  child  coverage
would have been approximately $120 per month.  The youngest child lost
eligibility and premiums were suspended effective 1 July 2004.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPTR states even though the applicant  claims  he  was  informed
that his child only SBP coverage would be suspended after the youngest
child lost eligibility, he had the choice to and  could  have  elected
SBP coverage for his wife when he retired, or during the 92-93 or  99-
00  open  enrollment  periods.   It  was  ultimately  the  applicant’s
responsibility to make the SBP election that  provided  the  level  of
protection best suited his family’s individual circumstances.  Had  he
elected  spouse  coverage  when  he  retired,  he  would   have   paid
approximately $20,600 in SBP spouse premiums to date.  SBP is  similar
to commercial life insurance in  that  an  individual  must  elect  to
participate during the opportunities provided by the law and  pay  the
associated  premiums  in  order  to  have  coverage.   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 his member  to  change  his  SBP  election.
Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that based on reading  AFPC/DPPTR’s  letter  dated  9
September 2004, he feels it is necessary to add clarification  to  his
previous letter submitted with the original request for correction.

Had he been aware the SBP payment and eligibility would stop after his
daughter turned 21/22 he would have taken full advantage of  the  open
enrollment  periods  (1992/1993  and  1999/2000)  referenced  in   the
background paragraph of the subject letter.  He was not aware  of  the
stop in SBP until the June/July 2004 time frame.

As he previously stated, he understands that if the correction is made
he will be required to pay the new monthly amount plus an amount to be
determined to make up the difference since his retirement.   He  fully
accepts those requirements.

He agrees that it was his responsibility to make the right decision at
the  time  of  his  retirement  but  he  also  believes  it   is   the
responsibility of the USAF to ensure that the retiree is provided  all
of the correct  and  pertinent  information  necessary  to  make  that
choice.  It is his belief that he was not provided all of the  correct
and pertinent information and briefings from the Hill AFB CBPO  to  do
that.  If he had, he would not have elected to have the SBP designated
to his daughter instead of his wife.  It is important to him  and  his
family that if he should predecease  his  wife  she  has  supplemental
income necessary to maintain a normal standard of living.

Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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;
however, we agree with the opinions  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.
Applicant has failed to provide evidence that he was  miscounseled  or
not  provided  sufficient  counseling  concerning  his  SBP  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  this  application  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

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2004-02452 was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Jul 04, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPTR, dated 9 Sep 04.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Sep 04.
      Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 1 Oct 04.




                             ROSCOE HINTON JR.
                             Panel Chair