Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02954
Original file (BC-2006-02954.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-02954
            INDEX CODE:  137.03

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His record be  corrected  to  show  he  did  not  reinstate  suspended
Survivor Plan (SBP) coverage for his new spouse.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He does not recall he was told he had to come in and make an  election
not to continue SBP coverage for his new spouse within one  year  from
the date of their marriage.

In support of his appeal, the applicant has  provided  copies  of  his
marriage certificate and other related paperwork.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant retired effective 1  February  1972,  prior  to  the  Plan’s
implementation.  His retired pay account  reflected  an  election  for
spouse only coverage based on a reduced  level  of  retired  pay.   In
April, 1987, to comply with the provisions of Public Law (PL)  99-145,
the Air Force Accounting and Finance Center (AFAFC) performed a cross-
match with the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS)
to determine if a participant with suspended spouse coverage had  been
married more than one year and to gather missing data  about  eligible
spouses.  As a result of the cross match, the applicant’s SBP data was
updated to reflect his wife’s date of birth (16  Sep  41).   In  April
1990, he provided documentation he was divorced in February 1976,  SBP
premiums were suspended and he was refunded $2,981.08  for  deductions
withheld from his retired pay (subject  to  the  six-year  statute  of
limitations).  DEERS reflects the member and his  former  spouse  were
married on 1 July 1976.  In 1998, he requested the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service (DFAS) to retroactively establish SBP  coverage  on
her behalf and agreed  to  pay  unpaid  SBP  premiums,  including  the
previously  refunded  amount.   DFAS  retired  pay  system  shows  SBP
premiums were deducted from his retired pay until his spouse died on 2
March 2002.  On 23 August 2005, DFAS received a certified copy of  the
applicant and his third spouse’s marriage certificate  and  SBP  costs
and coverage were reestablished on the first  anniversary  of  the  11
August 2005 marriage.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRT recommends  denial.   DPPRT  states  the  implementing  SBP
statute ensures that qualified, newly-acquired  spouses  are  afforded
the protection of the SBP regardless of the member’s failure or  delay
in requesting the coverage.  This automatic feature  of  the  SBP  was
adjusted by PL 99-145, but requires the member to take the appropriate
action to cause coverage to not be extended.  While  DPPRT  could  not
confirm what the member understood or was told about this feature,  he
offers no explanation for why he forwarded  a  copy  of  his  and  his
current spouse’s marriage certificate to  DFAS.   Nevertheless,  DPPRT
feels it reasonable to conclude his action reflected intent to provide
her with SBP coverage.

DPPRT’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant contends he does not dispute that he did not recall  he  had
to make an election; however, he was  told  if  he  did  not  make  an
election his coverage would not take effect by default.  He  does  not
want the SBP coverage and  his  current  spouse  will  not  waive  any
entitlement to SBP.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or an 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 (OPR) and adopt its rationale as  the
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of
an error or injustice.  While the applicant contends he did not intend
to make a valid election covering his current spouse with SBP  we,  as
did the OPR, noted the fact that their certified marriage  certificate
was sent to DFAS triggering Public Law (PL) 99-145  that  affords  SBP
coverage to newly-acquired spouses unless the member takes  action  to
cause coverage to not be extended.  He  failed  to  take  action  that
would deny her coverage.  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-
2006-02954  in  Executive  Session  on  30  January  2007,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
      Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
      Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Sep 06, w/atchs
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRT, dated 9 Nov 06.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Nov 06.




                                   KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02125

    Original file (BC-2005-02125.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The member elected spouse only coverage based on full retired pay during the Plan’s initial enrollment period authorized by Public Law (PL) 92-425. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states this situation started with his 11 Feb 05 request to DFAS to obtain cost and facts as to whether he could enroll his wife in the military SBP and CSRS SBP. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02236

    Original file (BC-2005-02236.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The now-deceased member received a refund of premiums he paid following his divorce from the applicant. He made no attempt to re-establish applicant’s SBP coverage by electing “former spouse” coverage after receipt of the refund and their divorce decree was silent regarding SBP coverage. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC- 2005-02236 in Executive Session on 27 October 2005, under...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-03506

    Original file (BC-2005-03506.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant and current spouse were married on 2 July 1995 and he took no action to prevent SBP coverage from being established on her behalf. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Retiree Services Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPTR, reviewed this application and recommended denial stating there is no evidence of Air Force error or injustice. DPPTR states that if the Board’s decision is to grant relief, the member’s record should be corrected to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01798

    Original file (BC-2007-01798.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. However, the applicant will have an opportunity to discontinue participation in the SBP at any time during the one-year period authorized by PL 105-85, beginning on the second...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00429

    Original file (BC-2012-00429.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIAR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: She was not provided or informed on the law and requirements of SBP. Had she been informed or provided the information on the requirements of the law pertaining to SBP she would have been able to make a...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01199

    Original file (BC-2007-01199.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Examiner’s Note: The law in effect at the time of the applicant’s divorce did not allow retired members to provide SBP coverage, even if they wished to voluntarily continue their former spouse’s eligibility. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In her response dated June 22, 2007, the applicant states her former spouse was very sorry and surprised when his request to name her his SBP beneficiary was denied. KATHLEEN...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01425

    Original file (BC-2007-01425.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPPRT 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. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and the 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01319

    Original file (BC-2005-01319.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 17 October 1998, PL 105-261 established an SBP open enrollment from 1 March 1999 through 29 February 2000 for servicemembers who were not participating at the fullest extent and a non-participant could elect coverage. The applicant’s records reflect his SBP coverage was terminated under PL 99-145 within the first year of his marriage to D. PL 105-261 did not prohibit servicemembers from making an election during open enrollment if they had not resumed spouse coverage when they remarried....

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03326

    Original file (BC-2006-03326.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03326 INDEX CODE: 137.01 COUNSEL: GAINES W. SMITH HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 26 APR 08 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Applicant was the spouse of the deceased former servicemember, who requests her late husband’s records be corrected to entitle her to a Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuity. The...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01439

    Original file (BC-2007-01439.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    Had the member elected SBP coverage based on full retired pay, the monthly cost would have been approximately $157 at the time of his death and the annuity would have been no less than $1,335. Furthermore, the Air Force may not pay an SBP annuity to the applicant because the member retired before the implementation of the SBP and he did not choose to provide SBP coverage on her behalf. It is possible that since the premiums were still being deducted from the member’s retired pay after the...