RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01435
INDEX CODE: 137.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 2 NOV 06
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be changed to allow him to terminate his participation in
the Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Based on the information he received when he completed the Air Reserve
Personnel Center (ARPC) Form 123, he believed he was required to
choose an option at that time or at age 59½. When he received his
retirement package, he realized the error.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 31 March 1976, the applicant retired from the Air Force Reserve.
The applicant was notified of his eligibility to participate in RCSBP
on 26 February 1990.
On 16 May 1990, the applicant elected Option C, Immediate annuity for
spouse only.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ARPC/PSD states the retirement package that was sent to the applicant
clearly explained the program as well as the cost that
he would incur with his election. Furthermore, the ARPC Form 123 also
clearly states that if a member elects option B or C that the election
is irrevocable except upon remarriage.
In addition, Title 10 USC, Section 1448a, the servicemember may elect,
between his second and third anniversary of receiving retired pay, to
discontinue coverage under RCSBP. They further informed him if he
decided to opt out of the plan after two years, he must notify Defense
Finance Accounting Service (DFAS)-Cleveland of his decision.
Therefore, based on the information above, they recommend the
requested relief be denied.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force opinion and states he understood
he had to select an option for the RCSBP, and the options were B or C--
A was strictly “delaying position” until his 60th birthday. He did
not understand why there was no option D, where he could not have
chosen an annuity at all. He felt he could just as well make the
election now rather than later.
He believes the HQ AFRPC Form 123 is confusing and the advice he
received did not help (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
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 contends he was not fully counseled on the options to
participate in RCSBP. On the contrary the RCSBP package that was
forwarded to the applicant contained information which clearly
explained the options of the RCSBP program and contained phone numbers
at ARPC should servicemembers have questions regarding the program.
To provide the applicant additional time to terminate his
participation in RCSBP would be unfair to other retirees in similar
situations. The Boards notes Title 10 U.S.C., Section 1448a,
authorizes the servicemembers between their second and third
anniversary of drawing retired pay the option to discontinue their
coverage under RCSBP. 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-
2005-01435 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 24 Apr 05, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Letter, HQ ARPC/PSD, dated 26 May 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 May 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 17 May 05.
MICHAEL J. NOVEL
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00637
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: When he completed the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) Form 123, he was advised that if he did not elect Option C, that if anything happened to him prior to his retirement his spouse would not receive any benefits. The applicant contends he was not fully counseled on the options to participate in RCSBP. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03833
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was never informed that $71.00 would be taken out of his retired pay in order for his wife to receive $200.00 upon his death. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPS states the applicant contends he was not counseled on the amount of the cost to participate in the RCSBP program. The applicant contends he was not counseled on the cost to...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02247
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: At the time of his selection for the benefit in 1996, there was very little information provided to a reserve member on the cost of RCSBP. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPP recommends denial indicating that the RCSBP package that was sent to the applicant clearly explained each option of the RCSBP and the cost of associated benefits. We...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03489
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Applicant states that her DFAS-CL 7220/48, Retiree Account Statement, shows an error for the RCSBP cost of $29.66 and request this error be corrected. She chose option C because their were no mention of RCSBP cost in Section VI, and the base personnel office did not make her aware of the cost associated with electing Option C. She never expected to pay for anything except for one payment for spouse...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-03077
On 27 Dec 92, he executed ARPC Form 123 electing spouse and child coverage, under Option C (immediate annuity), based on full retired pay. On 17 Feb 04, he executed DD Form 2656, Data for Payment of Retired Personnel, electing not to participate in the SBP. Novel, Member Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Sep 04, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00275
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00275 INDEX CODE: 137.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) election, made on 23 July 1986, be changed from full SBP coverage to cover the period between December 1997 and 28 October 2003 only. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01618
He was never informed that the 20 percent election would result in three times the amount being deducted for premiums from his retirement pay. 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 their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00604
Section IX, paragraph 2, of the Retirement Packet states, Reserve or Air National Guard members retiring with 20 years of Active Duty Service must make an SBP election even if they previously had an election for RCSBP. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02213
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The servicemember was notified in a letter dated 22 May 2000, that she had completed the 20 years of satisfactory service and was eligible to participate in the RCSBP. ARPC has no record of receiving an election request from the servicemember. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01158
He contends he was not aware of Public Law 105-85 and its one time option allowing beneficiaries to discontinue their participation during their third year of receiving retired pay. 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...