Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02783
Original file (BC-2005-02783.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02783
            INDEX CODE:

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

As the sister of the  now  deceased  retired  member,  his  record  be
changed to entitle her to a Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuity.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She claims her now deceased brother had signed her up for the annuity.

In support of her appeal, the applicant  has  provided  her  brother’s
death certificate.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The member and his spouse were married on 14 March 1961 and he elected
coverage for her under the Retired Serviceman’s Family Protection Plan
prior to his 1 March 1972 retirement.  He elected full spouse coverage
during the Plan’s initial enrollment period authorized by  Public  Law
(PL) 92-425.  His spouse died  on  30 August  1985  and  coverage  and
premiums under SBP were  suspended  and  RSFPP  was  terminated.   The
member remarried on 9 November 1986 and  SBP  was  reinstated  on  her
behalf.  They divorced on 11 May 1992 and the finance center suspended
spouse SBP coverage and premiums at that time.  He died on  28  August
2004.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRT recommends denial.  DPPRT contends the member  was  married
when eligible to elect SBP coverage, the statute did not allow him  to
elect coverage for anyone other than his wife  and/or  children.   The
applicant’s claim that the member signed her up as  the  SBP  eligible
beneficiary is without merit, because there is no provision that would
have allowed him to do so.  Therefore, there is no evidence of an  Air
Force error or injustice in this case, nor any basis to grant relief.

DPPRT’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
21 October 2005 for review and comment 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
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 applicant’s claim that her brother signed her
up as the SBP eligible beneficiary is without merit  as  there  is  no
provision that would have allowed him to do  so.   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-
2005-02783 in  Executive  Session  on  10  February  2006,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Panel Chair
      Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
      Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, undated.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRT, dated 13 Oct 05.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Oct 05.




                                   KATHY L. BOOCKHOLDT
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02913

    Original file (BC-2005-02913.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2006 | BC-2005-02539

    Original file (BC-2005-02539.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2005-02849.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2003 | BC-2002-03764

    Original file (BC-2002-03764.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR recommend that applicant’s request be denied and stated that there is no evidence of Air Force error or injustice, or merit in fact, nor basis in law to approve this case. Briefing material used at the time the member completed his RSFPP election clearly stated that “dependents acquired after you retire are not eligible to receive Family Protection Plan annuity payments,” payments would only...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02559

    Original file (BC-2006-02559.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The parties divorced on 7 July 1998, and the court ordered the former member to maintain the SBP coverage on the applicant’s behalf; however, neither party submitted a valid election change during the required time. Specifically, as noted by the Chief, Administrative Law Division, Office of the Judge Advocate General, in his memorandum of 20 April 2004, on the subject, there are a number of court decisions by both state and federal judiciaries that have held that, despite the divorce decree...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00953

    Original file (BC-2005-00953.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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-2005-02657

    Original file (BC-2005-02657.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005- 02657 INDEX CODE: 137.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 27 FEBRUARY 2007 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her deceased former spouse’s records be corrected to show that he elected coverage for her under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). Neither she nor her ex- husband was ever informed...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00973

    Original file (BC-2005-00973.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ___________________________________________________________________ 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 | CY2006 | BC-2006-00962

    Original file (BC-2006-00962.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00962 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 31 SEP 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Applicant is the ex-spouse of the deceased former servicemember, who requests her former late husband’s records be corrected to reflect he made a timely election for former spouse coverage under the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02915

    Original file (BC-2005-02915.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...