RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01563
INDEX CODE: 137.03
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Corrective action be taken that would allow him to terminate his
spouse and child coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
At the time of his retirement, he and his wife were separated and at
her counsel’s recommendation, she did not sign the SBP concurrence
statement prior to his retirement.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided copies of a
statement from his SBP counselor and several pertinent documents
dealing with his SBP account.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant was married and had an eligible child when he retired
effective 1 September 2005. He was counseled on the SBP and completed
an election to decline coverage; however, his wife’s concurrence in
his election was not received prior to his retirement. Absent a valid
election, the finance center established spouse and child coverage
based on full, retired pay to comply with the law. The SBP counselor
provided a copy of the SBP Report on Individual Personnel (RIP) the
applicant signed on 5 July 2005, acknowledging he understood the
options and effects of his actions pertaining to his SBP election.
Although the SBP counselor’s role is to brief and assist the member in
making an SBP election, it is ultimately the member’s responsibility
to comply with the statutory requirements of the law, by ensuring the
SBP counselor receives the spouse’s written concurrence before
retirement.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPTR contends there is no evidence of error or injustice in this
case and no basis in law for a spouse’s written concurrence to be
obtained by a mediated agreement. Approval of his request would
provide him an opportunity not afforded other retirees and is not
justified by the facts of this case. If he divorces, the spouse
portion of the SBP may be suspended by providing a certified copy of
his final divorce decree to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service
(DFAS). He may exercise his option under Public Law (PL) 105-85 to
terminate all SBP participation beginning on 1 September 2007. DPPTR
recommends denial.
DPPTR’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant states his ex-spouse refused to sign the SBP waiver
initially, but in a mediation session she signed it on 23 February
2006. DFAS refused to accept the waiver and continued to deduct
premiums from his retired pay. The statement indicating the applicant
had an eligible child is also incorrect as the child belonged to the
ex-spouse and was not his. He states they did not have a child
together. He is not requesting full reimbursement of his SBP, he only
requests reimbursement for the funds allotted after his ex-spouse
provided the notarized termination request.
_________________________________________________________________
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. He was briefed on his SBP options as evidenced by
his signature and it stands to reason he at least was made aware of
the fact that the law would provide full coverage for his spouse
should his election not include her signature. In fact, it appears
the relief he is requesting will be available to him via Public Law
105-85 effective 1 September 2007. 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-
2006-01563 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 16 May 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPPRT, dated 30 Jun 06.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jul 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Aug 06.
MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02108
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR states that Public Law (PL) 99-145 requires spouses of married servicemembers to concur in writing, prior to the servicemember’s retirement, in SBP elections that provide less than full spouse coverage. DPPTR further states SBP elections can not be arbitrarily terminated as long there are eligible beneficiaries; however, PL 105-85, effective 18 November 1997, authorized retired servicemembers...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03820
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...
STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Air Force indicated the applicant elected reduced spouse and child coverage The SBP counselor at d o ; F B , Nevada, provided verification that the applicant‘s wife did not attend the 4 Sep 96 SBP pre-retirement briefing. There is no evidence of error or injustice in this case and DPPTR recommends the requested relief be denied. The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 21 May 98, under the provisions of Air...
Even though the applicant and the decedent were married at the time of his retirement (1 Apr 91), records indicate that the applicant’s valid concurrence in the decedent’s SBP election was obtained prior to his retirement. Subsequently, the decedent was eligible to provide coverage for the applicant during two SBP open enrollment periods authorized by Public Laws (PLs) 101-189 and 105-126 (1 Apr 92 – 31 Mar 93 and 1 Mar 99 – 29 Feb 00, respectively). We took notice of the applicant's...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01550
The letter also explained that if she agreed with her husband’s child only election, she must sign and date the DD Form 2656 in the presence of a notary or a Military Personnel Flight (MPF) representative, and the form must be returned before her husband’s retirement date or maximum spouse coverage and costs will take effect. The applicant’s wife signed the election form eighteen days after his retirement date, evidence that the letter was received, and her signature was notarized in...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00869
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR recommends the applicant’s request be denied. 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 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.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04100
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Public Law (PL) 99-145 requires spouses of married servicemembers to concur in writing prior to the servicemember’s retirement, in the SBP election that provides less than full spouse coverage. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR states the applicant contends the finance center did not have her husband’s information to process an election. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100011734
In effect, she requests correction of her records to show, at the time she retired, she elected not to participate in the SBP. Although she and her spouse failed to make the election before her retirement, it appears the RSO counselor also failed to inform her or her spouse that the SBP election was required to be signed and dated before the effective date of her retirement. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected...
In fact, the item was the spouse notification letter sent by the SBP counselor to inform his wife of the options and effects of the SBP and to advise her that her concurrence was required in any election other than full spouse coverage. Basis for Request: The applicant claims he received an incorrect SBP briefing and the child SBP premiums are four times more than he was briefed. v 8 b. Unmarried children normally remain eligible beneficiaries until they reach age 18, or age 22 if...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00319
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR states the applicant submitted a notarized letter alleging the signature on the copy of an AF Form 1267, Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) Notification and Concurrence, is not her signature and that she did sign an SBP election form for annuity for 55 percent of the servicemember’s retired pay. If the servicemember had elected full spouse coverage, the applicant’s signature would not have been...