RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-01326
            INDEX CODE:  137.04

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Corrective action be taken that would permit him to increase his  base
amount under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) from a reduced  level  of
retired pay to full coverage and a full waiver of indebtedness created
by such.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Upon contacting the US Air Force (USAF) SBP Task Force to register his
new spouse for SBP coverage, he discovered he was not covered for  the
full SBP annuity.  Through no fault of his  own,  he  has  erroneously
believed the monthly SBP premiums  he  paid  supported  the  full  SBP
annuity.  This misperception was a direct result of the  fact  he  was
informed at his retirement that he was participating at the  full  SBP
annuity that was subsequently reinforced by every Defense Finance  and
Accounting Service (DFAS) retiree statement he has received  since  he
retired.  The significant debt that would be levied  against  him  for
increasing his SBP to the full annuity is an onerous financial  burden
on him and the security of his spouse.

In support of his  appeal,  the  applicant  has  provided  a  personal
statement and copies  of  waiver  of  indebtedness  request  to  DFAS,
several retiree account  statements,  and  his  certification  of  SBP
briefing.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant and his previous spouse were married on 28  March  1981.
He had originally elected  child  only  SBP  coverage  based  on  full
retired pay but changed his election to spouse and child prior to  his
1 September 1988 retirement as permitted by law.  His  wife  concurred
in  both  elections.   Public  Law  (PL)  108-375,  28  October   2004
authorized an SBP open enrollment beginning 1 October 2005 and  ending
30 September 2006 so members who declined or had less than maximum SBP
coverage could elect or increase their coverage up to a  maximum  base
amount of their gross retired pay.  Members are required to pay a lump
sum buy-in within 24 months after making the election.  In this  case,
his lump sum buy-in would be approximately $80,900.  If he submits  an
open enrollment election and survives for two years, his current  wife
would be entitled to an SBP annuity of approximately $2,305 vice  $300
per month.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  DPPRT can neither
confirm nor deny his claim he was unaware that the monthly cost  being
deducted from his retired  pay  was  for  a  reduced  annuity  amount;
nevertheless, there is no indication he was not properly  briefed  and
provided an estimated SBP cost and  monthly  annuity  his  wife  would
receive on his death.  Furthermore, he signed the Certification of SBP
Briefing verifying he was briefed  on  and  understood  the  provision
under the SBP.  SBP is similar to life insurance in that an individual
must elect to participate at the desired level and pay the  associated
premiums in order to provide coverage.   Therefore,  DPPRT  recommends
his record be corrected to  show  he  elected  spouse  and  child  SBP
coverage based on full, retired pay effective 31 August 1988.

DPPRT’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
30 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.  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.  While it  appears
he was unaware that the monthly cost being deducted from  his  retired
pay was for a reduced annuity amount there is no indication he was not
properly briefed and  provided  an  estimated  SBP  cost  and  monthly
annuity his wife would receive on his death.  Furthermore,  he  signed
the Certification of SBP Briefing verifying  he  was  briefed  on  and
understood the provision under the SBP.  However, while the Air  Force
Office of Responsibility recommended his record be corrected  to  show
he elected spouse and child SBP coverage based on  full,  retired  pay
effective 31 August 1988, they stopped short of recommending his lump-
sum buy-in for  such  be  forgiven.   However,  should  the  applicant
indicate his  desire  to  pay  the  buy-in  we  would  be  willing  to
reconsider his case.  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-
2006-01326  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. Donna Jonkoff, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Apr 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRT, dated, 15 Jun 06.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Jun 06.




                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair