ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-
02926
INDEX CODE: 128.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 01 OCTOBER 2007
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His deceased father’s service records be corrected to show that he
is the eligible beneficiary of his father’s death gratuity pay,
travel bonds and insurance.
___________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF CASE:
On 3 Aug 05, the AFBCMR considered and denied the applicant’s
request to correct his father’s records to reflect that he is the
eligible beneficiary of his father’s death gratuity pay, travel
bonds and insurance. For an accounting of the facts and
circumstances surrounding the application, and the rationale of the
earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings (ROP)
at Exhibit F.
Subsequent to the Board, applicant has provided additional
information in support of his appeal and alleges there was no legal
spouse at the time of his father’s death. His complete submission,
with attachments, is at Exhibit G.
___________________________________________________________________
ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ USAF/JAA reviewed this application and recommended denial. They
stated, in part, that they believe the applicant’s father was in
fact lawfully married to his wife, ----- --------, and the payment
of the death gratuity to his wife, ------, was proper. In his
enlistment record, he named his mother as his nearest relative to
be called in the event of an emergency, and his wife, ------, as
his first beneficiary (followed by his mother and his sister). In
accordance with that document, the death gratuity was paid to his
wife, ------. As long as ----- ------ lived with ----- and held
her out to be his wife, the marriage is valid under Georgia law.
Since ----- ------ identified ------ as his wife on his enlistment
paperwork in 1947, two years later, they can safely assume he did
in fact hold out --------- to be his wife, and that they lived
together as husband and wife. Consequently, the marriage to -------
was valid, and the payment of the death gratuity to ------ was
legal and proper. No adjustment or correction to the records is
warranted or appropriate. The applicant has failed to demonstrate
the existence of any error or to present any facts or circumstances
supporting an injustice.
A complete copy of the additional evaluation is at Exhibit H.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION
On 8 Dec 05, a copy of the 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 I).
___________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
After careful consideration of the evidence of record and the
applicant’s most recent submission, we found no evidence of error
or injustice. We agree with the HQ USAF/JAA opinion and adopt its
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has
failed to demonstrate the existence of any error or to present any
facts or circumstances supporting an injustice that would warrant
an adjustment or correction to the records. Therefore, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to
favorably consider his request.
___________________________________________________________________
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-2003-
02926 in Executive Session on 27 January 2006, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Rita S. Looney, Panel Chair
Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member
Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit F. Record of Proceedings, dated 15 Nov 05,
W/exhibits A through E.
Exhibit G. Additional documents from Applicant.
Exhibit H. Letter, HQ USAF/JAA, dated 7 Dec 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit I. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Dec 05.
RITA S. LOONEY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2003-02926
The death gratuity, insurance and travel insurance were never paid to the children. He enlisted in the Army Air Forces on 8 Oct 47, in the grade of private first class, for a period of three years. ___________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2003- 02926 in Executive Session on 3 August 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Ms. Rita S. Looney, Panel Chair Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member Mr. James A....
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03143
In support of her request, applicant provided a personal statement, a death certificate, documentation associated with the former member's CRSC determination, documentation associated with the applicant's Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) claims, and excerpts from various other literatures. JAA states the applicant believes Public Law 109-13 allows for the payment of increased death gratuity payments to all members of the armed forces who die as a result of combat related injury...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140009004
The Probate Court found that at the time the FSM executed his Will, it was his last will and testament and that his mother was to be appointed to serve as the Executrix of his general estate. Counsel provides: * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * DA Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings), dated 5 March 2007 * DA Form 199, dated 9 April 2007 * DA Form 3947 (Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings) * VA Rating Decision, dated 14 November 2007 *...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080019619
The evidence of record further shows despite his intent to marry the applicant, as evidenced by their request for a marriage license, the FSM completed an updated DD Form 93, on 9 November 2008, designating his mother as the beneficiary of his unpaid pay and allowances. The evidence of record also shows that the FSM and the applicant were married on 17 November 2008 and were issued a marriage certificate on 17 November 2008. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the applicant changed his...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02727
DPPRT advises that there are no provisions in law to waive the one-year eligibility period for spouses acquired after retirement. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant resubmits a copy of the former member’s divorce decree and a copy of a letter from Alfred Truman Solicitors dated 24 September 2004. Applicant’s letter, with attachment is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01019
(Note: At the time of the decedent’s election for spouse coverage, the finance center incorrectly entered 5 June 1940 vice 5 Jul 1940 as the applicant’s date of birth [DOB]) The parties divorced on 28 July 1986 and the court ordered that SBP coverage continue on the applicant’s behalf. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 27 October 2005, under the provisions of AFI...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-00678
Under this provision of law, the applicant is not eligible for additional SGLI gratuity payment since her son was not on active duty at the time of his death. DPPD’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant contends she wrote many letters to Congress advocating retroactive death benefits be extended to all those who died on active duty since 7 October 2001; not just those who...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01757
1450(f)(1) that states in all cases, the Air Force is required to notify the former spouse of any changes in SBP election. The Air Force did not answer her letter nor did they meet the one-year time frame to notify former spouses of changed elections as required by 10 U.S.C. Neither the servicemember nor the former spouse submitted a valid election within the one-year period required by law to establish former spouse coverage.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00439
There is no evidence he submitted an election during the 92-93, 99-00, or the 05-06 open enrollment periods. As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit D). 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 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.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03233
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Counsel states that, prior to the former member’s retirement from the Air Force, he elected SBP coverage for “spouse and child.” On 29 December 1983, the member and applicant divorced and their divorce decree incorporated a settlement agreement wherein the applicant would receive “all (100%) of the Husband’s Survivor benefits that can be paid to a former spouse.” The Defense Finance and Accounting...