RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00804
INDEX CODE: 137.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 8 AUG 06
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her late-husband’s records be corrected to reflect he elected Survivor
Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage for her.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was never notified that her late husband declined SBP prior to his
retirement. She believes he kept the information from her so he would
not have to have the money deducted from his retirement check.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The servicemember and the applicant were married on 15 August 1975.
Prior to the servicemember’s 1 August 1984 retirement, he declined to
elect SBP coverage. A notation in the Defense Finance and Accounting
Service (DFAS) transaction history indicates at the time of the
servicemember’s retirement the required spouse notification letter had
been received, thereby authorizing the validation of the
servicemember’s election to decline SBP coverage. The servicemember
died on 29 December 1997.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRT states on 21 September 1972, Public Law (PL) 92-425
established SBP which required spouses to be informed when a member
declined or elected less than maximum spouse coverage. The U.S. Court
of Claims has consistently ruled that widows of servicemembers who
retired after the implementation of SBP, and who were not given notice
of the servicemember’s election, were entitled to full SBP coverage.
However, the passage of PL 199-145, required spouses to concur in the
SBP election for servicemember’s retiring on or after 1 March 1986.
AFPC/DPPRT further states the intent of the spouse notification
requirement was to ensure spouses, upon the death of the
servicemember, did not learn for the first time they were not covered
by SBP. Notwithstanding the failure of the finance center to retain
documentation of the notification letter, in this case, the record
clearly and specifically reflects the required notice was sent to the
applicant. Nevertheless, the applicant has provided a notarized
statement alleging she did not receive the notification letter.
Although copies of the spouse notification letter were not retained by
the finance center, the annotation in the servicemember’s transaction
history was, at the time, the standard procedure for documenting that
the required spouse notification was or was not properly received.
AFPC/DPPRT finds no evidence of error or injustice and therefore,
recommends the requested relief be denied.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant
on 20 May 2005 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 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 opinion and the recommendation of the Air
Force and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or an injustice. The
applicant alleges that she was never notified that her late husband
declined SBP. However, there is an annotation in the servicemember’s
pay history that indicates spouse notification had been received by
DFAS authorizing the finance center to validate the servicemember’s
election to decline coverage under the SBP. 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-00804 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 J. Bachman, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Feb 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRT, dated 17 May 05.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 May 05.
MICHAEL J. NOVEL
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02726
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: At the time of the servicemember’s retirement on 1 April 1976, he and the applicant were married and he declined to elect spouse coverage under the SBP. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR states the laws that controlled SBP precluded a married servicemember, who declined spouse coverage at the time of retirement, from providing SBP former...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02348
Public Law (PL) 92-425, which established the SBP on 21 September 1972, authorized an enrollment period for retired servicemembers to elect SBP coverage. The applicant appears to believe she is entitled to an SBP annuity on the basis that her late spouse did not inform her about SBP before his death. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00568
Prior to the servicemember’s 1 October 1963 retirement, he was married and elected spouse and child RSFPP coverage, Option 4 - that allowed the member to terminate RSFPP premium payments in the event the beneficiary lost eligibility. We find no evidence he attempted to elect SBP coverage for the applicant during any of the four open enrollment periods provide by law. Regardless, it appears the servicemember made no attempt to elect SBP coverage for the applicant when he was eligible during...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01319
On 17 October 1998, PL 105-261 established an SBP open enrollment from 1 March 1999 through 29 February 2000 for servicemembers who were not participating at the fullest extent and a non-participant could elect coverage. The applicant’s records reflect his SBP coverage was terminated under PL 99-145 within the first year of his marriage to D. PL 105-261 did not prohibit servicemembers from making an election during open enrollment if they had not resumed spouse coverage when they remarried....
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 | CY2006 | BC-2005-02849
There is no evidence the servicemember submitted a valid election to voluntarily change the SBP coverage from spouse to former spouse within the required one year time limit following their divorce. The servicemember married M. on 23 September 1994, and the servicemember did not request that SBP coverage be established on her behalf. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 21 November 2005, the Board staff forwarded...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02913
The servicemember did not elect former spouse coverage on the applicant’s behalf. Counsel further states, based on the facts and the personal statement of the applicant, the Board should consider the benefit of doubt and find in favor of the applicant (Exhibit D). We do not take issue with the applicant’s contention that her divorce decree ordered her deceased former husband to provide former spouse coverage for her under the SBP, but he did not do so.
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...