RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00831
INDEX CODE: 137.03, 137.04
STEPHEN E. THOMAS COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP) coverage be
changed to Spouse Only coverage rather than Immediate Annuity for
Children Only coverage.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was not married at the time he separated and elected Child only
coverage. The court has since relieved him of the obligation to
provide child support. He received inadequate counseling at the time
of his discharge and was not aware he had only one year to make
changes to his RCSBP election to add his new spouse.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided copies of his
divorce decree and associated documents as well as his marriage
certificate.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
He was notified by letter of his eligibility to participate in the
RCSBP. The ARPC Form 123, Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan
Election Certificate, shows he elected Option C, Immediate Annuity for
children only coverage. He remarried on 25 April 1993, and, by law,
he was to notify ARPC should he want to change his RCSBP election to
include his new spouse. He failed to do so. Consequently, he was
ineligible to enroll her in the plan until an Open Enrollment period
occurred. On 10 October 2005, an Open Enrollment Period was
established by Public Law (PL) effective 1 October 2005 through 30
September 2006. This Open Enrollment Period allows members to change
their previous elections only for the purpose of increasing coverage
not to decrease it. On 6 February 2006, he was sent an RCSBP Open
Enrollment package.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ARPC/DPP recommends denial. DPP notes there are no waivers to the one-
year rule with which members have to make changes to their RCSBP
election upon remarriage. However, an Open Enrollment is now in
progress and DPP notes the applicant has not yet responded to an Open
Enrollment package that was sent to him. Regarding his request to
suspend coverage for his children, DPP states in accordance with Title
10 U.S.C., Section 1448(4) (B), “a Reserve Component annuity election
is irrevocable except in certain circumstances that are dictated by
law.” DPP states there will always be a small cost deducted from his
retired pay since he elected children only coverage even if the child
is no longer an eligible beneficiary.
DPP’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 9
June 2006 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date,
this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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. While there is no waiver of the one-year rule
with which members have to make changes to their RCSBP election upon
remarriage we note he did not take advantage of a recent Open
Enrollment package sent to him. Regarding revocation of his child
only coverage, his RCSBP election is irrevocable by law. 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-
2006-00831 in Executive Session on 5 October 2006, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Mar 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, ARPC/DPP, dated 24 May 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jun 06.
MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00217
Upon contacting the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) regarding RCSBP benefits, she was told her spouse had not made an election for coverage at the time of his 20- year letter or during following open enrollment periods. She questions a letter her spouse had received dated 1 March 1999 from HQ ARPC notifying him of an RCSBP Open Enrollment period. The Board noted that the now- deceased former member received the initial RCSBP package at his home on 8 March 1989, and did not respond to it.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00035
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 | CY2006 | BC-2006-00348
She has learned since her husband’s death that this package was mailed as registered mail with a suspense date of 90 days, requiring an election of A, B, or C to determine her annuity. There is no evidence he made an RCSBP election at that time. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded by thanking the Air Force for...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03146
He made no election during that time and was automatically enrolled in Option A, “Deferred election until age 60.” In 1995, the applicant was divorced from his former spouse and during an open enrollment in 1999 through 2000, he elected to participate with an election of Option CJ, “immediate annuity for child only.” In 2002, he was married to his current spouse. He would like his current spouse listed as the beneficiary under RCSBP. He completed all the required paperwork at that...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02262
DPP states the applicant was notified of his eligibility to participate in the RCSBP via a certified letter dated 18 Jul 97; however, their records show the applicant did not make an election at that time; therefore, he was automatically enrolled in option A, Deferred to make an election until age 60. During an open-enrollment period from 1 Mar 99 through 29 Feb 00, the applicant requested information on the RCSBP. However, discontinuing the RCSBP program does not stop the Reserve...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00978
Her husband was notified of his eligibility to participate in the RCSBP by letter dated 28 December 1988. He made no election within 90 days of receipt of notification, and was automatically enrolled in Option A, “Deferred Election Until Age 60.” During the RCSBP Open Seasons 1 April 1992 through 31 March 1993, and 1 March 1999 through 29 February 2000, members who had elected less than full coverage or no coverage for their spouse/children were able to change their election to cover their...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00045
ARPC has no record of receiving an election request from the servicemember. The applicant, as a widow of a retirement eligible servicemember, apparently is eligible for other benefits, such as the Commissary, Base Exchange and Tricare. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00775
The applicant did not include his child in his initial election on 21 February 1989 nor did he notify this office when he acquired this child within a year as required by law. In 2003, ARPC sent a letter to the applicant stating it was time to apply for his Reserve retired pay to be effective on 7 August 2003, his 60th birthday. When the applicant completed his application for retired pay - he changed his election from spouse only to spouse and child declaring his disabled child.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-02505
DPP notes the ARPC Form 123, RCSBP Election Certificate, reflects the servicemember elected Option A, decline to make an election until age 60. The evidence of record shows that the applicant’s deceased husband, upon notification of his eligibility for retired pay at age 60, originally elected Option A under the RCSBP thereby electing not to make a decision regarding coverage for the applicant until he reached age 60. The evidence of record does show the deceased service member requested...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01228
DPP records show that the family members are updated in their system. 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. It appears the applicant was notified on several occasions of her eligibility to participate in RCSBP and...