RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                        DOCKET  NUMBER:   BC-2005-
02793
                                             INDEX CODE:  137.00

                                             COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO



MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  12 MARCH 2007


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her deceased husband’s records be corrected to  show  that  she  is
entitled to a Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuity.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

After her husband’s death, she filed the SBP claim and the casualty
representative informed her she was no longer covered under the SBP
program.  She was  informed  that  in  order  for  her  husband  to
terminate his SBP coverage, she would have had to sign the document
which authorized termination of the SBP.  She would not have agreed
to sign documents that would have jeopardized her financial  status
after her husband’s death, or after paying  into  the  SBP  for  23
years.  She was extremely shocked  and  emotionally  distraught  to
learn that her husband was no  longer  paying  for  the  SBP.   She
requested from DFAS, a copy of the DD Form 2656-2, Survivor Benefit
Plan (SBP) Termination Request.

In support of her request, the applicant provided  a  copy  of  her
letter to DFAS, and her husband’s death certificate.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The Air Force indicates the member and the applicant  were  married
on 7 Oct 55.  The member elected  spouse  and  child  SBP  coverage
based on a reduced level of retired pay  prior  to  his  1  Mar  75
retirement.  On 17 Jun 98, Defense Finance and Accounting Service –
Cleveland Center (DFAS-CL) received and  processed  the  decedent’s
properly completed DD Form 2656-2 which contained  the  applicant’s
signature, reflecting she concurred in the termination of  her  SBP
coverage.  The member died on 2 May 05.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRT recommends denial, stating the applicant’s claim that
she would not  have  agreed  to  sign  documents  jeopardizing  her
financial status after her husband’s death is without  merit.   The
DD Form 2656-2 clearly shows that the applicant signed the form and
by signing the form,  she  acknowledged  that  she  understood  the
disadvantages of her decision to give up the benefit.   However,  a
notary seal is not visible on the  scanned  form  provided  by  the
finance center.  Often, original forms  scanned  into  the  DFAS-CL
system do not capture in a reproducible manner some types of notary
seals.  Furthermore, Section  V  of  the  DD  Form  2656-2  clearly
instructed members to have their spouses’  signature  notarized  if
not signed in front of an SBP counselor  prior  to  submitting  the
form.

Public Law 105-85 (18 Nov 97), established a one-year window during
which participants could disenroll from the SBP (17 May 98 – 16 May
99).  Retirees had to complete a DD Form  2656-2,  and  obtain  the
beneficiary’s  written  notarized  consent.   Disenrollments   were
effective the month following the DFAS-CL’s receipt of  a  properly
completed request, there was no refund of premiums paid,  and  once
disenrolled, the member was permanently barred from  providing  SBP
coverage.

The complete Air Force evaluation, with attachments, is at  Exhibit
B.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

It is evident to her that the DD  Form  2656-2  was  not  completed
properly due to a discrepancy between the date of their  signatures
and the  date  it  was  notarized.   Therefore,  DFAS  should  have
identified the discrepancy, determined the  election  was  invalid,
and returned the application to her husband to complete  correctly.
She has no recollection of signing the DD Form 2656-2.

After reviewing a copy of  the  DD  Form  2656-2,  she  agrees  the
signature on the  form  is  hers.   She  trusted  her  husband  and
believed he would not have had her sign a document that would  have
been detrimental to her financial future.  She has no  recollection
of visiting a notary public.  If the document  was  signed  in  the
presence of a notary public, then one would assume the notary would
have ensured she understood what she was signing  and  ensured  the
date she signed the form was the same date the notary witnessed the
form.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRT stands by  their  original  recommendation  that  the
request be denied.  In their previous advisory, dated  20  Oct  05,
they stated that DFAS-CL  received  and  processed  the  decedent’s
properly completed DD Form  2656-2,  Survivor  Benefit  Plan  (SBP)
Termination Request,  which  contained  the  applicant’s  signature
reflecting she concurred in the termination of  her  SBP  coverage,
but the notary seal was not  visible.   DFAS-CL  later  provided  a
second DD Form 2656-2, dated 6 Jul 98  containing  the  applicant’s
signature.  The latter form was properly notarized.  The fact  that
a notarized DD Form 2656-2 was requested  by  DFAS-CL  because  the
notary was not visible on the first form does not change  the  fact
that the applicant clearly signed both forms  and  by  signing  not
only one, but two forms designed to  terminate  SBP  coverage,  she
acknowledged  that  she  fully  understood  the  disadvantages  and
advantages of her decision to give up the benefit.

The complete additional Air Force evaluation, with attachments,  is
at Exhibit E.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant disagrees that the application of  discontinued  SBP  was
properly notarized, according to the dates on the  notary  (Exhibit
G).

___________________________________________________________________

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.   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 Docket Number BC-2005-
02793 in Executive Session on 15 June 2006, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
      Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
      Ms. Marcia Jane Bachman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Aug 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRT, dated 20 Oct 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Oct 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Nov 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRT, dated 20 Jan 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Jan 06.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Feb 06.




                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair