RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03587
            INDEX CODE:  137.00
            COUNSEL:  ACY AKRIDGE
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: May 25, 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her late husband’s records be corrected to show he made a  Survivor  Benefit
Plan (SBP) election naming her beneficiary.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was not informed or notified of SBP when her husband  retired  in  1966.
She learned last year (2005) of SBP benefits by reading the Afterburner  and
talking to other military spouses.

In support of her request,  the  applicant  provided  a  copy  of  her  late
husband’s retirement orders, his out-processing checklist,  a  copy  of  his
death certificate, letters from the Department of  Veterans  Affairs  (DVA),
letters she sent to the DVA, her congressman, a reply  from  the  Department
of the Navy, a webpage covering SBP  from  the  internet,  and  a  notarized
statement granting her son-in-law permission to act  on  her  behalf  before
the AFBCMR.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s deceased husband retired on  1  Jul  66  with  21  years,  7
months, and 28 days total active service.

The former member died on 27 Sep 82.

The  applicant  provided  a  copy  of  the  former  member’s  out-processing
checklist which displays a check  mark  indicating  “no”  to  the  question,
“Have you made an election in the  Retired  Serviceman’s  Family  Protection
Plan (RSFPP)?  If so, would you  like  further  information  regarding  your
selection?  Have you  acquired  new  dependents  since  your  selection  was
made?”

RSFPP was in effect until 21 Sep 72.

The applicant applied to the  DVA  for  benefits  in  2005  and  was  denied
dependency and indemnity  compensation  (DIC),  death  pension  and  accrued
benefits in 2006 based on the fact the veteran’s death was not shown  to  be
related to military service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRT  recommends  denial.   Defense  Enrollment   Eligibility   System
(DEERS) records indicate the decedent and applicant were married on  10  Sep
49.  The former member had an opportunity to elect survivor  protection  for
the applicant, but failed to do so.  He did not enroll in  the  RSFPP  prior
to his 1 Jul 66 retirement and there is no evidence he returned an  election
form during the initial SBP open enrollment period (21 Sep 72 – 20 Mar 74).

Public Law 105-85 (18 Nov 79)  established  a  minimum  SBP  annuity  for  a
limited, specific group of survivors—-annuity,  certain  military  surviving
spouses (ACMSS)—-also referred to as “forgotten widows,” those  un-remarried
surviving spouses of members who retired prior  to  21  Sep  72,  the  SBP’s
initial open enrollment, and died prior to 21  Mar  74.   The  $165  monthly
special annuity became  effective  1  Dec  97  for  surviving  spouses,  who
qualified and applied for the benefit.

There is no evidence of an Air Force error or injustice or any basis in  law
to grant relief in this case.

The complete AFPC/DPPRT evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded  by  stating  she  was  not  aware  of  choices  her
deceased husband had nor did she know  he  elected  to  exclude  a  survivor
protection plan, as she was not  required  to  sign  anything  acknowledging
this fact.  No document can be located to show she was aware and denied  the
right  she  deserved.   She  further   stated   the   government   let   the
responsibility fall on each individual to find out on their own  by  reading
articles in magazines and other publications.  However,  in  her  household,
reading material was  not  allowed  and  the  only  proof  she  has  is  the
testimony of her three children, as they will tell only  school  books  were
allowed in the house.

The applicant also apologizes for taking 24  years  to  request  correction;
however, today’s technology has left her generations behind and  she’s  only
asking the government to help her  in  her  aging  years  to  something  she
should have had the right to deny or accept many years ago.

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  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.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been  shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will  materially  add  to
our understanding of the issue  involved.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________

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-2006-03587
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 for Docket Number BC-2006-
03587:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Oct 06.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRT, dated 20 Dec 06.
      Exhibit C.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, 1 Jan 07
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Dec 06.




                                   KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                                   Panel Chair