RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00494
INDEX CODE: 137.04
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Corrective action be taken to show her entitlement to a Survivor
Benefit Plan (SBP) annuity.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She did not sign an SBP form and does not agree that her husband would
not have provided coverage for her.
In support of her appeal, the applicant has provided copies of her
deceased husband’s death certificate, their marriage certificate, a DD
Form 149, Application for Correction of Military Record dated 27
October 1990 asking for validation of his request to decline SBP
coverage and a copy of his wife’s statement of agreement.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The former member and applicant were married on 2 August 1957. The
member declined SBP coverage prior to his 1 July 1990 retirement.
However, the applicant did not concur with member’s election prior to
his retirement date and full spouse coverage was established on her
behalf as required by law. On 27 October 1990, the member requested
his record be corrected to show he declined SBP coverage due to
administrative oversight. It was determined the applicant had
actually signed SBP paperwork signifying her notification of the
member’s declination and not her concurrence with the action. Part of
the member’s 1990 application included a valid concurrence statement
from the applicant.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPTR recommends denial. DPPTR notes the applicant provided
documentation showing her concurrence with her now deceased spouse’s
request to show he declined coverage effective 30 June 1990. 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.
By concurring in his election after the fact, the applicant
voluntarily and willingly forfeited her right to an annuity upon the
member’s death. Furthermore, she does not allege or provide proof
that the signatures on the concurrence statements are forgeries.
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 protests the
statements in the advisory indicating she had signed two notarized
statements of concurrence. She fully expects the Board to send her
copies of the notarized statements.
_________________________________________________________________
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
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. She contends she did not sign the original
declination of SBP coverage, yet the Air Force advisory includes two
notarized statements of her concurrence with the declination.
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-
2005-00494 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 28 Jan 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPPRT, dated 21 Mar 05.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Mar 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, undated.
MICHAEL J. NOVEL
Panel Chair
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Retiree Services Branch, AFPC/DPPTR, reviewed this application and states Public Law (PL) 99-145 (8 Nov 85 but effective 1 Mar 86) requires a spouse’s written concurrence be obtained whenever a married retiree elects less than full spouse SBP coverage. DPPTR further states that the applicant’s claim that her husband declined SBP coverage because he believed his retired pay would be offset by...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00419
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Retiree Services Branch, AFPC/DPPTR, reviewed this application and states Public Law (PL) 99-145 (8 Nov 85 but effective 1 Mar 86) requires a spouse’s written concurrence be obtained whenever a married retiree elects less than full spouse SBP coverage. DPPTR further states that the applicant’s claim that her husband declined SBP coverage because he believed his retired pay would be offset by...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02492
Law has established that SBP requires information be provided to servicemembers and spouses concerning the options and effects of SBP prior to the servicemember’s retirement. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR states the applicant provided her written concurrence on the DD Form 2656 declining SBP coverage. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03065
He was briefed that SBP costs would be 50% of his retirement pay, which they agonized over before declining SBP coverage. If they were correctly informed during their initial briefing, they would have elected to participate in the program and she would have never signed the form declining coverage. Further, there is no record the member submitted an election under PL 105-261.
On 22 Apr 02, DPPTR sent a letter to the applicant requesting that she provide a sworn, notarized statement in which she attested that she did not receive notification that her husband had declined SBP coverage at the time of his retirement and that she provide a statement acknowledging and understanding that, if her husband's records are changed, the unpaid contributions (approximately $27,660) will be collected from any annuity payment she would be entitled to receive. The...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-01626
If there were not a competing eligible beneficiary, or that beneficiary would consent to the change via a notarized statement, he would recommend correcting the record. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D The deceased member’s widow provided a notarized statement stating in part, that she and her deceased husband had an understanding that the ex-wife (who is the applicant), would receive the SBP benefits. KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2007-01626 MEMORANDUM FOR THE...
The RSFPP election form provided by the applicant reflects he elected spouse and child coverage with Option 4. However, if the Board recommends granting the request, the decedent’s record should be corrected to show RSFPP spouse and child coverage based on one-half of his retired pay was established effective 1 June 1970. We therefore agree with the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that her late husband’s intent not to extend...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00661
Her husband told her that if they signed for survivor benefits, the military would take out a large amount of money from his retirement. She did not know that for her to sign away the survivor benefit she and her children would not get any more of his retirement. _________________________________________________________________ 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.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01037
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR states Public Law (PL) 99-145, established on 8 November 1985, required as of 1 March 1986 spousal concurrence of the SBP election, if the election was providing less than maximum spouse coverage. According to the Defense Finance and Service - Cleveland Center (DAFS- CL) the servicemember elected full spouse and child coverage under SBP, but later submitted a corrected election to decline SBP...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02336
SBP payments terminated because DIC payments are greater than $238. Under the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Action, the former spouse’s right to payments based on a division of retired pay terminated upon the death of the former member. _________________________________________________________________ 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...