RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03821
INDEX CODE: 137.01
COUNSEL: XXXXXXX
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her late husbands records be corrected to show he elected
spouse-only coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She did not consent to or elect to name their children as
beneficiary recipients and if such an election was made it is
unjust and must have been made in error.
In support of her request, the applicant provided a copy of her
marriage license, her late husbands death certificate, Defense,
Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) documentation, a sworn
affidavit, a copy of the decedents last will and testament,
documentation from the Lincoln Financial Group, a copy of the
decedents SGLV-8721, Beneficiary Designation, dated 16 Feb 90,
and a pay statement.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
_
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The decedent was retired on 1 Sep 89 and credited with 25 years,
11 months, and 26 days of active service. He and the applicant
were married on 9 Jul 63.
Other relevant facts are outlined in the AFPC/DPSIAR evaluation
at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
_
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIAR recommends denial. DFAS records reflect the
decedent elected maximum child only SBP coverage prior to his 1
Sep 89 retirement. Records further contain an annotation that
the applicant concurred with the members SBP election prior to
his retirement. Absent a valid election, DFAS would have
established full spouse and child coverage to comply with the
law.
Media storage and retrieval incompatibilities between DFAS and
the Air Force Accounting and Finance Center (AFAFC) preclude
acquiring a copy of the applicants concurrence statement;
nevertheless, the record reflects she concurred in her late
husbands decision. While it is unfortunate, DFAS Cleveland
Center (DFAS-CL) did not properly ensure copies of the critical
SBP documentation such as the members election forms and
spouses concurrence statements were safeguarded and retrievable
following Oct 93, when DFAS-CL assumed Air Force retired pay
responsibilities. Nevertheless, there is a strong basis to
presume both SBP counselors and AFAFC pay technicians
administratively discharged their duties correctly and in
compliance with the laws controlling proper documentation and
establishment of SBP elections. Furthermore, there is no record
the member submitted an election on the applicants behalf under
Public Law (PL) 1010189 or 105-261. Had he made an election on
the applicants behalf during the open enrollment authorized by
PL 108-375, he would have been required to live at least until
1 Oct 08 for the coverage to become valid.
The complete AFPC/DPSIAR evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicants counsel on 1 Feb 08 for review and comment within 30
days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has not received
a 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. 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 Docket Number BC-
2007-03821 in Executive Session on 26 June 2008, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
XXXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
XXXXXXXXXXX, Member
XXXXXXXXXXXX, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 13 Nov 07.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIAR, dated 22 Jan 08.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Feb 08.
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-02569
His record contains a copy of a 28 Apr 93 letter from DFAS-DE advising him, among other things, that the 12 Feb 93 open enrollment election he submitted was “invalid” because block 10 did not indicate the base amount upon which he wished to establish coverage. His open enrollment election form contained what appears to be the monthly SBP premium amount he thought would be collected from his retired pay if he elected coverage on a reduced level of retired pay. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02361
With no SBP election annotated, full SBP coverage should have been established for her unless there was another AF Form 1266 completed. DFAS-Cleveland Center (DFAS-CL) did not properly ensure copies of critical SBP documents, such as members' election forms and spouses' concurrence statements, were safeguarded and retrievable following Oct 93 when DFAS-CL assumed Air Force retired pay responsibilities. Assuming possible facts most favorable to the applicant, at its best possible, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00672
They note that the record should be corrected to show that, effective 30 Nov 76, the decedent elected spouse only SBP coverage based on full retired pay. In this case, as in all Barber cases, the facts are essentially the same: there is no record the required notice was sent to the applicant and the applicant has provided a sworn statement that she did not receive notification that the decedent had declined SBP coverage. ________________________________________________________________ THE...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2011-02061
_______________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to the information provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, the applicant and the decedent were married on 29 May 1961. After the death of the retired member, the widow provided a sworn statement that she did not receive notification that her husband had declined SBP coverage. To date, a response has not been received (Exhibit C).
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 03848
Notwithstanding the fact the applicant has provided a sworn statement alleging that she was not aware her husband did not elect SBP coverage and AFAFCs failure to retain documentation of that notification, the history transaction annotated in the decedent's record confirms standard procedures regarding the spouse notification requirement was properly accomplished. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 03362
The member and the applicant were allegedly married in Tijuana, Mexico on 8 Jun 82, and he elected spouse only coverage based on a reduced level of retired pay during the open enrollment authorized by Public Law (PL) 97-35 (1 Oct 81 30 Sep 82). The Air Force office of primary responsibility has recommended that we consider voiding the decedent's 23 Sep 82 election for SBP coverage for the applicant, suggesting that the "erroneous deductions of SBP premiums for spouse coverage be refunded...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04233
She recently discovered that upon their divorce, her ex- husband failed to change the SBP election designation from spouse to former spouse as was required by their divorce agreement. Based on the favorable recommendation rendered by the Air Force office of primary responsibility indicating that since the member did not request SBP coverage be terminated upon his divorce from the applicant, he intended for her to remain his SBP beneficiary. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01544
Based on the available evidence of record and the applicants submission, it appears the decedent and the applicant were married in Feb 09. Subsequent to the divorce of his first spouse, a deemed election for former spouse coverage was submitted to DFAS and accepted in accordance with the divorce decree and the governing law. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Jun 12.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02773
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum 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. As of this date, no response has been received by this office. The Board would be willing to reconsider her request upon receipt of the applicants affidavit stating she did not receive the...
An AFAFC letter to the decedent, dated 7 October 1972, explained that SBP coverage had been established on his spouse's behalf in compliance with the provision of the law that required establishment of maximum spouse and child coverage if a member, such as the applicant, made no election before retirement. Documents provided by the applicant include a copy of a 7 Oct 72 letter to the decedent from the Air Force Accounting and Finance Center (AFAFC) which explained SBP coverage had been...