Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02835
Original file (BC-2005-02835.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02867
                       INDEX CODE:  137.00

                       COUNSEL: None

                                                HEARING DESIRED: Not
  Indicated

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  19 MAR 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her former late husband's record be corrected to  reflect  he  elected
former spouse coverage under the Reserve  Component  Survivor  Benefit
Plan (RCSBP).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She should receive the survivor benefits because  she  is  the  former
spouse of the deceased servicemember and he did not remarry.

She had no knowledge that such a  benefit  existed.   Her  late-former
husband never told her about this benefit when they were married or at
the time of their divorce.

She did not know she had one year after the divorce to apply for  this
benefit.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant and late servicemember were married on 16 February 1974.
 On  30  June  1997,  the  late  servicemember  was  notified  of  his
eligibility to participate in the RCSBP.  On 22  September  1997,  the
servicemember submitted an election for Option  C,  Immediate  Annuity
for Spouse and  Child.   The  applicant  and  the  servicemember  were
divorced on 16 September 1999.  The servicemember  died  on  27  March
2005.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/PSD states the servicemember and the applicant were  divorced  in
September 1999, and the SBP coverage for spouse and child was  changed
to child only.  Furthermore, it appears the applicant, in part, relies
on the transcript of the divorce  hearing  which  contained  questions
from her attorney discussing dividing present value equally.  This  is
not evidence of intent for former spouse coverage to  be  included  in
the final order.  There is no court order  included  directing  former
spouse coverage under the SBP.   The  applicant  stated  her  attorney
failed to be certain the process was completed  within  the  one  year
requirement.  They recommend denying the requested relief.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and  states  that  she
never knew the survivor benefit existed, so therefore  she  could  not
apply for it within the one year window following their divorce.   She
further requests consideration in correcting the RCSBP election of her
former late-husband (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 its rationale as the  basis  for  our  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.   In  this
respect, it appears that neither  the  servicemember  nor  the  former
spouse submitted an valid election within the one-year period required
by law to establish former spouse  coverage.   There  is  insufficient
evidence presented indicating the servicemember’s  intent  to  provide
former spouse coverage for the applicant.  Therefore, in view  of  the
foregoing, 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-
2005-02867 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, dated 13 Sep 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Letter, HQ ARPC/PSD, dated 12 Oct 05, w/atch.
      Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Oct 05.
      Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.




                             KATHY L. BOOCKHOLDT
                             Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02867

    Original file (BC-2005-02867.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant and the servicemember were divorced on 16 September 1999. She further requests consideration in correcting the RCSBP election of her former late-husband (Exhibit D). There is insufficient evidence presented indicating the servicemember’s intent to provide former spouse coverage for the applicant.

  • 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-2005-02849

    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 | CY2007 | BC-2006-02725

    Original file (BC-2006-02725.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s counsel requests copies of all documents by which the Air Force determined that her client gave inadequate notice of her entitlement to the SBP, of which benefits were awarded her (and paid for by her) pursuant to the divorce decree. Apparently the Air Force determined they received adequate notice to pay her client her portion of the court-ordered military retirement benefits, it appears incongruous for the Air Force now to take the position that such notice was inadequate to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02726

    Original file (BC-2005-02726.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: At the time of the servicemember’s retirement on 1 April 1976, he and the applicant were married and he declined to elect spouse coverage under the SBP. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR states the laws that controlled SBP precluded a married servicemember, who declined spouse coverage at the time of retirement, from providing SBP former...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9900336

    Original file (9900336.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Upon her late husband’s retirement, he completed the SBP Election Certificate and elected Option A to decline to make an election at that time, but to remain eligible to make an election for coverage at age 60. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that her late husband’s records should be modified to allow participation in the RCSBP. The following members of the Board considered this application...

  • 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 | CY2007 | BC-2007-00035

    Original file (BC-2007-00035.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00035 INDEX CODE: 137.04 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 12 June 2008 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her late husband’s marital status be changed from “single” to “married” in the year 2001, and that his records be changed to show he elected to participate in the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01301

    Original file (BC-2007-01301.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...

  • 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...