RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00284
INDEX CODE: 137.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to show that he changed the base amount of
his spouse and child coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP)
from full to a reduced level of retired pay.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He made his election for SBP coverage for his spouse and children. He
initialed in the wrong block.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits copies of the old DD Form
2656, Data for Payment of Retired Personnel, and the new one.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was married and on 22 September 2004, made an SBP
election at Randolph AFB for spouse and child coverage based on full-
retired pay, prior to his 1 January 2005 retirement. Since he elected
maximum spouse coverage, his wife’s concurrence was not required.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRT states they can neither confirm nor deny the applicant’s
claim that he thought he was choosing reduced coverage. Item 27a of
the DD Form 2656, the block applicant initialed, clearly reads “I
elect coverage based on full gross pay without supplemental SBP.
Additionally, since the applicant’s wife did not sign Section XI of
the DD Form 2656, concurring to a lesser annuity amount, it is
reasonable to conclude that reduced coverage was not the intended or
desired selection. The applicant signed the SBP Report of Individual
Person (RIP), acknowledging he understood the options and effects of
his actions pertaining to his SBP election and although the SBP
counselor’s role is to brief and assist the applicant in making an SBP
election, it is ultimately the applicant’s responsibility to elect the
coverage that best suits their family. Approval of this request would
provide the applicant an opportunity not afforded other retirees. The
applicant may disenroll with his wife’s written concurrence, during
the one-year period beginning 1 January 2007 as authorized by PL 105-
85. There is no evidence of an error or injustice; 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 he would like to comment on some points that are
inaccurately stated. First, he would like to refute the following
invalid assumption: Since his wife’s concurrence was not required,
she was not present at the 22 Sep 04 SPB agreement signing. In fact,
his wife is very busy with her own business and significant
coordination effort was required to have her attend this meeting. The
Randolph AFB SBP POC can attest to the fact that his wife was indeed
present at this meeting and did, in fact, sign the SBP paperwork.
Second, on his honor as a military officer, he declares that he did
indeed believe that the coverage he was signing for on 22 Sep 04 with
his wife present was the desired level of reduced coverage. The
difference on the DD Form 2656 is simply initialing one block versus
another. If he is willing to submit this request with his wife’s
concurrence, then it is not reasonable to conclude that reduced
coverage was not his intended selection. He certainly hopes that Air
Force error doesn’t have to be a finding in order to approve changing
his SBP coverage. In fact, this is a simple miscommunication that
both his wife and he want to correct. He asks that they be granted
the relief they desire, spouse and child SBP coverage of $1320. He
also asks that his wife’s signature on this document be her written
concurrence with the requested action.
Applicant's complete response, with attachment, 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 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
and adopt their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
________________________________________________________________
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 7 July 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Member
Ms. Marcia Jean Bachman, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Jan 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRT, dated 2 Feb 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Feb 05.
Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 18 Feb 05, w/atch.
MICHAEL J. NOVEL
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00415
Even though the law in effect at the time of the applicant’s divorce did not allow retired members to provide former spouse SBP coverage, the member could have voluntarily elected former spouse SBP coverage on the applicant’s behalf when he applied for commencement of his retired pay, but he did not. A member, who has an eligible former spouse at the time of retirement, and does not elect SBP former spouse coverage, may not later elect that option unless Congress authorizes an open...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02917
The Air Force developed the SBP RIP (report-individual person), a tool for counselors to use for one-on-one briefings conducted prior to a member’s retirement. 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 applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-03530
Public Law (PL) 108-375 authorized an open enrollment period beginning 1 Oct 05 through 30 Sep 06, that allowed service members, who had declined or had less than maximum level of SBP coverage, an opportunity to elect to participate or increase their coverage. The applicant had two opportunities to elect SBP coverage for his spouse and failed to do so. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01390
There is no record he submitted an election to provide coverage for her at that time. 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 this member to change his SBP election. 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...
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,...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03410
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: At the time of his retirement he was erroneously briefed on his options for SBP. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR states a servicemember who has eligible children at the time of retirement and declines to elect coverage for them under SBP, may not provide coverage for any child in the future, unless an open enrollment period has been...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03700
DPPRT states it would be inequitable to those members, who chose to elect spouse coverage during the 2004-2005 open enrollment period, paid the buy-in retroactive amount and received reduced retired pay to provide an additional opportunity for this member to change his SBP election. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03820
On 11 March 1999, the applicant submitted a request to terminate his SBP coverage under the provisions of PL 105-85. PL 108-375 authorized an open enrollment period from 1 October 2005 through 30 September 2006 to enroll in SBP, but the law stipulates that servicemembers who terminated coverage under the provisions of PL 105-85 can not renter the program. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00494
DPPTR states even though the applicant did not sign the original SBP election form, she later signed two notarized concurrence statements agreeing with the applicant’s request to decline SBP spouse coverage. DPPTR’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant responded to the Air Force advisory with an undated letter reiterating she had not signed the original SBP form and...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02793
Furthermore, Section V of the DD Form 2656-2 clearly instructed members to have their spouses’ signature notarized if not signed in front of an SBP counselor prior to submitting the form. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: It is evident to her that the DD Form 2656-2 was not completed properly due to a discrepancy between the date of their signatures and the date it was notarized. In their previous advisory, dated...