Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00743
Original file (BC-2006-00743.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                        DOCKET  NUMBER:   BC-2006-
00743
                                              INDEX  CODE:   137.04

                                             COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO



MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  10 SEPTEMBER 2007


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Corrective action be taken that would allow him to provide Survivor
Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage for his wife.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When he remarried and got his wife an identification card, he  does
not recall any information on SBP requirements.

     ___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The Air Force states the member was  unmarried,  but  had  eligible
children, and elected child only SBP coverage based on full retired
pay prior to his 1 Nov 79  retirement.   The  youngest  child  lost
eligibility Jun 86 due to age.  The member  and  his  current  wife
married on 19 Jun 03, but there is no evidence he submitted a valid
spouse SBP election within the first year of their marriage to  the
Defense Finance and Accounting Service –  Cleveland  Center  (DFAS-
CL).

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPTR recommends denial.  A member,  who  is  unmarried  at
retirement, may elect coverage for the first spouse acquired  after
retiring.  However, the election must  be  made  before  the  first
anniversary of the marriage.  If a member fails to make an election
before then, SBP coverage for that person or another person of that
category may  only  be  elected  if  Congress  authorizes  an  open
enrollment period.

Although the member claims that he did  not  recall  receiving  any
information about SBP options, issues of the Afterburner, News  for
USAF  Retired   Personnel,   were   mailed   to   the   applicant’s
correspondence address he provided to the finance center.  Articles
reminding retirees of their options when marrying after  retirement
are routinely published in the Afterburner.  The Jan  04  issue  of
the Afterburner, published within the member’s one-year opportunity
to elect SBP coverage for  his  wife,  provided  guidance  and  the
importance of contacting DFAS upon any change  in  martial  status.
Had the applicant  submitted  a  valid  election  within  the  time
prescribed for making an SBP  election  after  retirement,  monthly
premiums would be approximately $81.

Public Law  (PL)  108-375,  28  Oct  04,  authorized  an  SBP  open
enrollment (1 Oct 05 – 30 Sep 06), during which retirees may  elect
spouse coverage.  Coverage under PL  108-375  requires  a  “buy-in”
amount, in addition to monthly premium payment.  In this case,  the
member’s lump-sum buy-in would be  approximately  $4,620.   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.   Approval  of  this  request  would  provide   the
applicant an additional  opportunity  to  elect  SBP  coverage  not
afforded other retirees similarly situated and is not justified.

There is no evidence of error or injustice in this case.   However,
if the Board’s decision is to grant  relief,  the  member’s  record
should be corrected to show that on 18 Jun 04 he elected to add his
wife to his suspended child only SBP coverage based on full retired
pay.  Approval should be contingent  upon  the  recoupment  of  all
applicable premiums he would have paid had he made the election  at
that time.

The complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit B.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 21 Apr 06, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was  forwarded  to
the applicant for review and comment within 30 days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C).

___________________________________________________________________

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.  Futhermore, we note  that  Public
Law 108-375, 28 Oct 04, authorized an SBP open enrollment (1 Oct 05
– 30 Sep 06); the applicant can elect coverage for his spouse under
this law.  Based on the foregoing, and 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-2006-
00743 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 14 Feb 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRT, dated 13 Apr 06.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Apr 06.




                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01729

    Original file (BC-2005-01729.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01729 INDEX CODE: 137.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 28 NOVEMBER 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to permit him to provide Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage for his spouse. He married P--- on 25 August 1990; however, there is no record he submitted a...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03820

    Original file (BC-2005-03820.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 11 March 1999, the applicant submitted a request to terminate his SBP coverage under the provisions of PL 105-85. 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 BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-03530

    Original file (BC-2010-03530.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Public Law (PL) 108-375 authorized an open enrollment period beginning 1 Oct 05 through 30 Sep 06, that allowed service members, who had declined or had less than maximum level of SBP coverage, an opportunity to elect to participate or increase their coverage. The applicant had two opportunities to elect SBP coverage for his spouse and failed to do so. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01326

    Original file (BC-2006-01326.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRT states even though his retiree account statements have erroneously reflected his full retired pay as the annuity base amount for over seventeen years, the monthly cost deducted is based on the reduced annuity he elected prior to his retirement. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00439

    Original file (BC-2007-00439.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no evidence he submitted an election during the 92-93, 99-00, or the 05-06 open enrollment periods. As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit D). 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 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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01423

    Original file (BC-2006-01423.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR notes if the member submitted an open enrollment election and survives for two years, his spouse would be entitled to an SBP annuity of approximately $685 per month upon his death. The applicant contends he was advised, in August 2004, that he had to wait for one year after his marriage to secure Survivor Benefit Plan coverage for his second spouse and subsequently, in July 2005, he was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02917

    Original file (BC-2005-02917.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Air Force developed the SBP RIP (report-individual person), a tool for counselors to use for one-on-one briefings conducted prior to a member’s retirement. 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. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04082

    Original file (BC 2013 04082.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was not advised prior to or during his out processing that he could elect spouse SBP coverage for his wife. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFFF recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00775

    Original file (BC 2014 00775.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    When a member fails to elect SBP coverage for an eligible spouse, coverage cannot be established thereafter except during a Congressionally-mandated open enrollment period. Had the applicant elected spouse and child coverage, the cost for his spouse and eligible children would have been approximately $88 per month. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03740

    Original file (BC-2008-03740.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The personnel advising him at the time he secured a military identification for his wife should have informed him of benefits available under the SBP. Under the SBP program, the law authorized enrollment periods 1 Mar 99 to 29 Feb 00 and 1 Oct 05 to 30 Sep 06, for retired member to elect SBP coverage. 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...