RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00869
                                       INDEX CODE:  137.03
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX     COUNSEL: NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  24 September 2007


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her husband’s records be corrected to show he elected spouse  only  coverage
based on full retired pay versus spouse only coverage  based  on  a  reduced
level of retired pay under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She and her spouse were given poor advice by Air Force personnel as  to  the
selection of the SBP and the impact it would have in the future.

In support of  her  application,  the  applicant  provided  a  copy  of  her
husband’s DD Form 214, Certificate  of  Release  or  Discharge  from  Active
Duty, his certificate of death, and Certification of Survivor  Benefit  Plan
Briefing.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The decedent was relieved from active duty  on  28  February  1989  with  21
years, 4 months, and 4 days of active duty  and  retired  in  the  grade  of
chief master sergeant effective 1 March  1989.   The  decedent  died  on  16
January 2006.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted  from
the decedent’s military records, are contained in  the  letter  prepared  by
the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPTR recommends the applicant’s request be denied.  DPPTR  is  of  the
opinion that there is no evidence of Air Force error or  injustice  in  this
case.  DPPTR states the decedent elected spouse only  coverage  based  on  a
reduced level of retired pay prior to his 1 March 1989 retirement,  and  the
applicant concurred in his election.  The applicant is  currently  receiving
an SBP annuity of $299 for which the decedent  paid  approximately  $13  per
month.  If the election had been based on full retired pay, the  applicant’s
SBP annuity would be $1,102.  If maximum SBP had been elected,  the  monthly
premiums would have been more than $130.

DPPRT states they can neither confirm nor deny the  applicant’s  claim  that
both she and the decedent were  incorrectly  advised  prior  to  retirement.
However, the decedent signed the Certificate of SBP Briefing,  acknowledging
that he was briefed on and understood the provisions under the SBP and  made
a valid election with the applicant’s concurrence.  The  microfiche  records
from the Air Force  Accounting  and  Finance  Center  reflect  the  spouse’s
concurrence was received, validating the election.   The  decedent  had  two
opportunities to increase the level of coverage on  the  applicant’s  behalf
during the 1992-1993 and 1999-2000 open enrollments, but he chose not to  do
so.

If the Board’s decision is to grant relief, the decedent’s record should  be
corrected to show on 28 February  1989,  he  elected  spouse  only  coverage
based on full retired pay.  Approval should be contingent upon the  recovery
of premiums the decedent would have paid had he made the  election  at  that
time.  The retroactive premium debt would be approximate $33,300.

The DPPTR evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The error made was due to  the  prejudiced  presentation  of  facts  by  the
person advising them during the retirement process.   They  were  told  that
SBP insurance was very expensive; most retirees did not  elect  it,  and  it
would be best to find a regular life insurance  policy.   If  the  plan  had
been presented in a positive light, she has no doubt that  they  would  have
elected the maximum benefit.

The applicant’s rebuttal is at 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 probable error or injustice.  The available evidence  indicates
that the applicant’s husband elected SBP coverage based on a  reduced  level
of retired pay prior to his 1 March 1989 retirement.   The  decedent  signed
the Certificate of  SBP  Briefing,  acknowledging  he  was  briefed  on  and
understood the provisions under the SBP and made a valid SBP  election  with
the applicant’s concurrence.  The applicant had the right to concur or  non-
concur in that election.  We note the applicant’s contentions that  the  SBP
counselor provided poor advice as to the selection of the SBP; however,  she
has provided no evidence that would lead us to  believe  the  SBP  counselor
provided misleading or inaccurate information.  Therefore,  in  the  absence
of substantive evidence to the contrary,  we  agree  with  the  opinion  and
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility  and  adopt
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not
been the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.   Accordingly,  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 this application 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 in connection with  AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2006-00869:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Mar 06.
      Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPTR, dated 3 May 06.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 May 06.
      Exhibit D.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 24 May 06.




                                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                                   Panel Chair