RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00661
INDEX CODE: 137.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 28 AUGUST 2006
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her husband’s records be corrected to show that she is entitled to a
Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuity.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She (the applicant) and her husband were in Germany when he decided to
retire. They were not financially ready. She did not know how the
survivor benefits worked, nor the importance of having or not having
survivor benefits. She did not receive any briefings or any
explanation about survivor benefits. Her husband took her to an
office at Hanau Army Post to sign the papers. (She does not have a
copy of the SBP package.) Her husband told her that if they signed
for survivor benefits, the military would take out a large amount of
money from his retirement. He told her they needed his full
retirement money for their home mortgage. They paid their home
mortgage with her husband’s retirement. After her husband passed
away, his death was reported to the VA. Her mortgage bank called and
told her she was past due on her payment. She called VA and found out
his retirement stopped when he passed away. 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. She is from the Philippines and did
not know anything about the regulation of her husband’s retirement.
She is afraid she might lose her home. She has two children ages 12
and 15. She works, but her income is not enough to pay the bills.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal statement, a
copy of her husband’s death certificate, and a copy of DD Form 2856,
Data for Payment of Retired Personnel.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The deceased member and the applicant were married and had dependent
children. He declined SBP coverage prior to his 1 July 2003
retirement. A copy of the SBP election retained by the finance center
reflects on 4 February 2003, the applicant signed Block 30a of the SBP
election form, concurring in the member’s election to decline
coverage. The former member died on 26 January 2005.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRT states the applicant provided her written concurrence and
her signature was witnessed by personnel at the Military Personnel
Flight (MPF) at Rhein Main Germany. By signing the election form,
concurring in the former member’s election, the applicant certified
that she had received information explaining the options available and
the effects of those options. If the applicant had refused to sign
the form because she did not fully understand the impact of her
decision, she would have remained eligible for SBP coverage, the same
protection she enjoyed without cost while the former member served on
active duty. It would be inequitable to other widows, who also
concurred in their sponsors’ elections to decline coverage, to grant
this widow another opportunity to obtain SBP coverage after the death
of the former member. Therefore, they recommend denial of the
applicant’s request.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 8 April 2005, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to
the applicant for review and response within 30 days. 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 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. As
stated, by signing the election form, concurring in the member’s
election, the applicant certified that she had received information
that explained the options available and the effects of those options.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
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 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 18 Feb 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Deceased Members Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRT, dated 30 Mar 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Apr 05.
MICHAEL J. NOVEL
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00804
Nevertheless, the applicant has provided a notarized statement alleging she did not receive the notification letter. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
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-2005-02539
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 | 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-2005-00973
___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Air Force indicated the member and the applicant were married on 10 Aug 74 and the member elected spouse and child coverage based on full retired pay prior to his 1 Jul 97 retirement. NOVEL Panel Chair MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR) SUBJECT: AFBCMR Application of [APPLICANT] I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01610
Also, the applicant’s mother was not informed by the military of the need to file any paperwork to claim these benefits, nor was she aware that they even existed. Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant states it is unlikely that the applicant’s mother knowingly decided to forgo SBP benefits. After thoroughly reviewing the documentation submitted...
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.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01301
The complete DPPRT evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In her undated and unsigned response, the applicant states that for her aunt not to apply for her SBP annuity speaks volumes. It appears documentation was filed to report her uncle’s death but the process for application of the SBP annuity was never completed. ______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...
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 | 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...