Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03282
Original file (BC-2005-03282.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03282
            INDEX CODE:  137.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

      284-30-1352      HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  29 April 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

No one processed the request and no one let him know that the deed was
not done.  He died 4 April 2005 and she applied for SBP and was turned
down.  Someone did not do their job.  All of the  paperwork  was  sent
in.  Marriage certificate, birthdate and social  security  number  all
turned in.

In support of the appeal, applicant  submits  a  copy  of  her  former
spouse’s Death Certificate, a copy of their Marriage License,  a  copy
of the former member’s retirement order,  two  copies  of  the  former
member’s DD Forms 214, a copy of a letter  from  Defense  Finance  and
Accounting Service (DFAS) Retired and Annuity Pay, seven letters and a
fax.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The former member and the applicant were married  on  24  March  1956.
The former member did not enroll in the RSFPP prior to  his  1  August
1972 retirement, but elected child only SBP coverage during the Plan’s
initial open enrollment.  There  is  no  evidence  the  former  member
elected SBP coverage on the  applicant’s  behalf  during  any  of  the
subsequent three SBP_ open enrollment periods conducted prior to his 4
April 2005 death.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRT states that even  though  the  former  member  submitted  a
request to Defense Finance and Accounting Service -  Cleveland  Center
(DFAS-CL) in August 2004, requesting that the applicant  be  added  to
his child only SBP coverage, DFAS-CL was not authorized to  honor  his
request, because there is no provision in the law  to  establish  such
delayed coverage except during an open enrollment.  The former  member
had five opportunities to elect survivor protection for the applicant,
but failed to do so.  SBP is similar to commercial life  insurance  in
that an individual must elect to participate and  pay  the  associated
premiums in order to have coverage.  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.   Therefore,  they  recommend  denial  of
applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The widow of the former member provided a statement saying her husband
was not notified that DFAS-CL was not authorized to honor his request.
 He requested information concerning the correct procedure  to  follow
in order to enroll her in the SBP program.  She sent the  information.
She is not trying to get something for nothing.   Her  husband  always
believed the Air Force always takes care of its own.   Well,  it  sure
has let him down now.  She hopes the decision is reconsidered.

Applicant's  complete  response,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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
and adopt their rationale as the basis for  the  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
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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 10 February 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

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

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Oct 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRT, dated 29 Nov 05.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Dec 05.
      Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, undated, w/atchs.




                             KATHY BOOCKHOLDT
                             Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | 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 | 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-2006-01227

    Original file (BC-2006-01227.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 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...

  • 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-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-2006-03676

    Original file (BC-2006-03676.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The member’s widow is eligible to receive an SBP annuity of $412, but she has not submitted an application to date. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit B. Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. The widow of the service member indicated in a statement dated 25 Jan 06, that she recently completed and returned some forms sent to her by DFAS-CL.

  • 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-2005-02726

    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...