RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03820
            INDEX CODE:  137.00

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED: Not Indicated

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show he did  not  terminate  his  Survivor
Benefit Plan (SBP) participation under the provisions  of  Public  Law
(PL) 105-85.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There were several flaws in the program that were detrimental  to  his
overall financial plans.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant married B. on 22 October 1955 and elected SBP spouse and
child coverage based on a reduced level of retired pay.

The applicant retired on  1  May  1974.   Their  youngest  child  lost
eligibility for SBP due to age in July 1989.

On 11 March 1999, the applicant submitted a request to  terminate  his
SBP coverage under the provisions of PL 105-85.  His spouse  concurred
with election.  The applicant’s participation in SBP was terminated by
Defense Finance and Accounting Services (DFAS) on 26 March 1999.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPTR states that Public Law 105-85, 18 November 1997, authorized
servicemembers who had been retired as of 17 May 1998  for  more  than
two years, a one-year window  to  disenroll  from  the  SBP.   If  the
servicemember chose to terminate the SBP, they must  complete  the  DD
Form  2656-2,  with  the  spouse's  signed  notarized  consent.    The
termination would take effect the month following receipt by  DFAS-CL.
When terminating SBP the servicemember is not entitled to a refund  of
premiums  and  is  barred  from  reentering  SBP.   Further,  if   the
servicemember failed to exercise the disenrollment  option  before  16
May  1999,  the  SBP  election  would  be  considered  permanent   and
irrevocable as long as the beneficiary remained eligible.

PL  108-375  authorized  an  SBP  open  enrollment  period   beginning
1 October 2005 through 30 September 2006.  This open enrollment period
allows servicemembers who are not participating in the  Plan  or  have
less than the maximum level of coverage the opportunity  to  elect  or
increase their coverage up to a maximum base  amount  of  their  gross
retired  pay.   The  guidance  for  PL  108-375  stipulates   that   a
servicemember,  who  discontinued  participation  in  SBP  under   the
provisions of PL 108-85, could not resume participation  in  the  plan
for any category of beneficiary during this open enrollment period.

DPPTR further states information about discontinuing participation was
published in the May and September 1998  issues  of  the  Afterburner,
USAF News For Retired Personnel, which were sent to the correspondence
address the retired  servicemembers  provided  to  DFAS  stressed  the
potential impact of disenrolling from the plan.  The May 1998 issue of
the Afterburner included an article which stated “If the  decision  is
finally made to disenroll, it should be with the understanding that it
is something that may never be undone.”  Furthermore, a  statement  on
the DD Form 2656-2 reads “I further understand that once I discontinue
SBP, I cannot reenter the Plan.”  DPPRT further states  to  allow  the
applicant  an  opportunity  to  restore  his  SBP  coverage  would  be
inequitable  to  other  retirees  similarly  situated   and   is   not
justifiably  the  intent  of  law  or  the  evidence  provided.   They
recommend the applicant’s request be denied.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states at the time
he elected to participate in SBP in 1974, it was never made clear that
the program included a major reduction in benefits  at  age  62,  that
payments would continue even after death of spouse and  payment  would
continued for the life of the retiree.  These flawed  provisions  were
not in the best interest of the retiree and have finally been  or  are
in the process of being corrected.  These provisions are  the  reasons
he chose to opt out of participating in SBP in 1999 as his wife turned
62 and her potential benefits were severely reduced.

He does not believe allowing him to reinstate his participation in the
program would adversely impact the program because he  understands  he
would have to make “catch up” contributions to the program.

The  administrators  seemingly  have  no  compunction  about  allowing
servicemembers who initially elected lower amounts to  increase  their
participation in the program, or a retiree who  rejected  the  program
entirely upon retirement, to enter during this open enrollment period.
 In both these situations the servicemember has  changed  their  minds
and thus benefiting from the material improvement of the plan.  He too
has changed his mind and strongly believes he should be  permitted  to
re-enter the plan upon payment of appropriate retroactive cost.

He further noted the date of his marriage is 29 October 1955  and  not
22 October 1955 (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 an error or an 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 its rationale as the  basis  for  our  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the victim of either an error or an  injustice.
The applicant alleges he disenrolled from the  program  due  to  flaws
that were detrimental  to  his  overall  financial  plan.   PL  105-85
provides servicemembers  a  one-year  window  to  disenroll  from  SBP
providing they have been retired for more than 2 years as  of  17  May
1998 and that future enrollment is barred.   The  applicant  submitted
the completed DD Form 2656-2  with  the  notarized  signature  of  his
spouse concurring with the termination.   The  DD  Form  2656  clearly
states that once the coverage is discontinued that reenrollment is not
possible.  The applicant wanted his coverage terminated and he did  so
under the  appropriate  provision.   PL  108-375  authorized  an  open
enrollment period from 1 October 2005 through  30  September  2006  to
enroll  in  SBP,  but  the  law  stipulates  that  servicemembers  who
terminated coverage under the provisions of PL 105-85 can  not  renter
the program.  The applicant has not established  to  our  satisfaction
that he was unaware of the provisions of termination of  coverage  and
its effects.  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-
2005-03820 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 10 Dec 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRT, dated 20 Jan 06.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Jan 06.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Feb 06.




                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair