RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03937
INDEX CODE: 137.03
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to show he elected child only coverage
under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was erroneously advised by the SBP counselor at Fort George
Meade, Maryland that his daughter had to live with him in order
to be included in the SBP.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided copies of a DD
Form 2656, Data for Payment of Retired Personnel, a letter to
his spouse concerning applicants SBP election, and SBP Cost and
Annuity Estimate.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
_
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was relieved from active duty on 31 January 2003
with 23 years, 11 months, and 11 days of service and retired in
the grade of master sergeant effective 1 February 2003.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application,
extracted from the applicants military records, are contained
in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air
Force at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
_
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIAR recommends denial of the applicants request.
DPSIAR states the applicant and XXXXX were married and had
eligible step-children and a natural child, but he elected
spouse only SBP coverage based on a reduced level of retired pay
prior to his 1 February 2003 retirement. Records at the Defense
Finance and Accounting Service-Cleveland Center (DFAS-CL)
reflected that Mary concurred in the election. Based on the
Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS), the
parties divorced on 5 July 2006. SBP coverage and premiums were
suspended, and there is no evidence the decree required SBP
coverage to be established on XXXXXXXX behalf. DEERS reflects
the applicant and XXXXXXXX married on 5 July 2007. Absent a
valid request submitted before the first anniversary of their
marriage to establish SBP spouse coverage on her behalf, the law
requires DFAS-CL to reinstate reduced spouse coverage on 5 July
2008.
DPSIAR states that Air Force procedures require SBP counselors
to provide not only a one-on-one briefing to retiring members,
but furnish an SBP Report on Individual Personnel (RIP) that
clearly and specifically outlines the features of the Plan.
Members are required to sign the RIP at the end of their
briefing to indicate they received information and understand
the provisions of the Plan. Item C2 describes an election for
child only coverage. The copy of the applicants RIP was
obtained from his master personnel record and it bears his 14
November 2002 signature below the certifying statement I have
been briefed on and understand the provisions of SBP as outlined
in Items A through K on pages 3 and 4 of this RIP.
Notwithstanding the applicants claim that the SBP counselor
provided erroneous information, there remains a strong
presumption that administrators of the SBP discharge their
duties correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.
DPSIAR states there is no evidence of Air Force error or
injustice and no basis in law to provide relief in this case.
The DPSIAR evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 8 February 2008, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days
(Exhibit D). 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 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. After
reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the
applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice. We note
the applicants contention that he was erroneously advised that
his daughter had to live with him in order to be included in the
SBP; however, he has provided insufficient evidence that the SBP
counselor provided misleading or inaccurate information at the
time of his retirement. 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 26 June 2008, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
XXXXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
XXXXXXXXXXXX, Member
XXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-03937:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Apr 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIAR, dated 30 Jan 08.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Feb 08.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2011-05136
Therefore, she is requesting that she be allowed to establish SBP coverage for her spouse at the same rate, base amount and coverage he elected for her. According to the information provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, the applicant and her spouse were married, but she declined SBP coverage prior to her 1 Jun 2009 retirement and her spouse concurred with her election. _______________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02926
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) reflect the applicant married on 24 June 1994 and he made a valid SBP election for spouse and child coverage based on full retired pay, prior to being placed on the Permanent Disability Retirement List (PDRL) effective 18 April 2006. The applicant was provided a retirement pay estimate of $1,894 with a monthly cost estimate of $126 for full spouse...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01593
He was also briefed he could change it later, but was not informed that once he separated from the Air Force he could not remove his wife from SBP for two years. In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of a signed letter from his wife. The applicant had time to change his election, with his wifes concurrence, prior to his retirement date.
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00900
As he did not elect coverage for his wife prior to his retirement, he may not establish SBP coverage for his spouse except during congressionally approved open enrollment periods. DPSIAR notes there is no error or injustice in this case and that the applicant had three opportunities to elect SBP coverage for his wife. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant contends the reason he did not take advantage of...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01101
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01101 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her former spouse’s records be corrected to establish former spouse coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIAR indicates that since the request...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03938
DPSIAR forwarded these documents to DFAS-CL and requested her SBP record be adjusted to reflect child only coverage based on full retired pay under the SBP, retroactive to her 1 October 1996 retirement, stop spouse SBP premium and refund the difference in monthly premiums subject to the 6-year statute of limitations. Evidence has been provided that supports the applicant was not married and attempted to elect child only coverage prior to her 1 October 1996 retirement. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02894
The laws controlling the SBP do not permit the applicant to provide coverage for his second wife now, or at any other time, unless Congress mandates an open enrollment period. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: He argues that he was not briefed on the policy concerning election of SBP spousal coverage and the suspension of that portion of the coverage after...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02406
It would be inequitable to those members who chose to elect spouse coverage when eligible and subsequently received reduced retired pay, to provide an additional opportunity for this member to change his SBP election. It was not until June 2012 during his spouse's one-on-one SBP and VGLI briefings at the Pentagon that they clearly learned that SBP and VGLI were not combined programs. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 03821
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. 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...