RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-
01715
INDEX CODE: 137.01
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 27 NOVEMBER 2006
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her deceased husband’s records be corrected to show he elected
coverage for her under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was not made aware of any benefits upon her husband’s
retirement from the Armed Forces or her eligibility for SBP.
In support of her appeal, the applicant submits a copy of her birth
certificate, their marriage certificate and a copy of the member’s
death certificate.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The Air Force states the former member and the applicant were
married on 2 Mar 55. The member did not enroll in the Retired
Serviceman’s Family Protection Plan (RSFPP) prior to his 1 Jan 71
retirement and there is no evidence he returned an election form
during either of the two SBP open enrollment periods conducted
prior to his 1 Jun 89 death.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPRT recommends denial stating, in part, there is no
evidence of error in this case. The RSFPP was in effect until
21 Sep 72. Members were briefed and were required to make their
RSFPP elections before completing 18 years of service. Spouse
notification was not required.
Public Law (PL) 92-425, which established the SBP on 21 Sep 72,
authorized an enrollment period for retired members to elect SBP
coverage. PL 97-35 later authorized an additional open enrollment
period (1 Oct 81 – 30 Sep 82). During both open enrollment
periods, members were advised by direct mail of their eligibility
to make an election. The enrollment packets, as well as the
Afterburner, USAF News For Retired Personnel, published during
those timeframes, were sent to the correspondence address members
had provided to the finance center and contained points of contact
for retirees to use to gain additional information. There were no
provisions in these laws which required the Services to notify a
spouse if the member did not enroll.
The member had three opportunities to elect survivor protection for
the applicant, but failed to do so. The RSFPP and the SBP are
similar to commercial life insurance in that an individual must
elect to participate and pay the associated premiums in order to
have coverage. Furthermore, the applicant offers no explanation
for delaying over sixteen years since the member’s death in seeking
correction. It would be inequitable to those members, who chose to
participate when eligible and subsequently received reduced retired
pay, and to other widows whose sponsors chose not to participate,
to provide entitlement to this widow on the basis of the evidence
presented.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit B.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 24 Jun 05, 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. (Exhibit C)
___________________________________________________________________
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 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. 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 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 Docket Number BC-2005-
01715 in Executive Session on 27 October 2005, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 May 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPPRT, dated 22 Jun 05.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Jun 05.
MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
Panel Chair
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-2005-02348
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 | CY2008 | BC-2008-01092
The applicant and member were married again on 14 Feb 75, however he did not request SBP coverage be reestablished on the applicant's behalf within the first year of their marriage, or during subsequent open enrollment periods. The SBP Election Certificate, provided by the applicant reflects he elected spouse and child SBP coverage on 11 Jan 80; however, the election was invalid because it was not completed during the authorized open enrollment period of one year. Members who were...
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 | CY2006 | BC-2006-01227
There is no evidence of Air Force error or injustice in this case. 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. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be...
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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-01176
However, there is no evidence the applicant elected coverage for his spouse during these time periods. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02915
Public Law (PL) 92-425, which established the SBP on 21 Sep 72, authorized an enrollment period for retired members to elect SBP coverage. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit B. 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...
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...