RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03700
INDEX CODE: 137.01
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Corrective action be taken that would allow him to enroll in the
Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
At the time of his SBP briefing, he knew he was going to retire
overseas with his Croatian spouse. Based on the information he
received regarding what benefits his spouse would receive in the event
of his death, he determined SBP was not feasible at that time.
Further, he was not told the 30% withholding was simply a withholding
for income tax purposes and that his spouse could file an IRS Form
1040 each year and recoup most of that withholding based on the fact
that she does not work and SBP would be her only source of income.
This turned out to be a significant finding for him as he has learned
that options for life insurance programs are very limited in Croatia
and no company in the United States will ensure (sic) him if he lives
outside the United States permanently.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided copies of his DD
Form 2656, Data for Payment of Retired Personnel, and his Certificate
of SBP Briefing.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant and his spouse were married but declined SBP coverage
prior to his 1 July 2004 retirement. His spouse concurred with his
election. Public Law (PL) 108-375 authorized an SBP open enrollment
period beginning 1 October 2005 through 30 September 2006 that allowed
members who declined or had less than maximum SBP coverage an
opportunity to elect to participate in increasing their coverage up to
a maximum base amount of their gross retired pay. Members were
advised by direct mail of their eligibility to make an election. The
enrollment packets as well as the Afterburner, News for USAF Retired
Personnel, published during these timeframes were sent to the
correspondence address each member had provided to the finance center
and contained points of contact for them to use to gain additional
information. There is no indication the applicant was improperly
counseled prior to his retirement and he made a valid election with
his wife’s concurrence. A copy of the SBP Report on Individual
Personnel (RIP) shows he signed the certification sheet on 11 February
2004 indicating he was properly briefed on the options and effects of
the Plan. His spouse’s signature on section XI of the DD Form 2656
indicates her acknowledgement of the decision to decline SBP coverage
and that the election would be irrevocable. The earlier open season
period authorized by PL 108-375 required members to pay a lump-sum buy-
in amount within 24 months after making an election. Had the
applicant taken advantage of the open enrollment, his buy-in amount
would have been approximately $15,900 resulting in a monthly cost of
about $279.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRT recommends denial. DPPRT states it would be inequitable to
those members, who chose to elect spouse coverage during the 2004-2005
open enrollment period, paid the buy-in retroactive amount and
received reduced retired pay to provide an additional opportunity for
this member to change his SBP election. DPPRRT contends there is no
evidence of error or injustice in this case.
DPPRT’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
16 February 2007 for review and comment within 30 days. 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 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. The applicant and his spouse agreed to not make
an SBP election at the time of his retirement and failed to take
advantage of a subsequent open season. 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-
2006-03700 in Executive Session on 7 June 2007, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Panel Chair
Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Nov 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPPRT, dated 5 Feb 07.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Feb 07.
KATHY L. BOOCKHOLDT
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02917
The Air Force developed the SBP RIP (report-individual person), a tool for counselors to use for one-on-one briefings conducted prior to a member’s 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 applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00439
There is no evidence he submitted an election during the 92-93, 99-00, or the 05-06 open enrollment periods. As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit D). 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 the victim of an error or injustice.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03410
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: At the time of his retirement he was erroneously briefed on his options for SBP. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR states a servicemember who has eligible children at the time of retirement and declines to elect coverage for them under SBP, may not provide coverage for any child in the future, unless an open enrollment period has been...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100023396
The applicant states her deceased husband, a former service member (FSM), applied for spouse and child(ren) SBP participation during the open season extending from 1 October 2005 to 30 September 2006. Had the FSM's SBP application been processed correctly his effective date would have been 1 January 2006 and he would have paid up the buy-in premium on 30 December 2008. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: *...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01423
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR notes if the member submitted an open enrollment election and survives for two years, his spouse would be entitled to an SBP annuity of approximately $685 per month upon his death. The applicant contends he was advised, in August 2004, that he had to wait for one year after his marriage to secure Survivor Benefit Plan coverage for his second spouse and subsequently, in July 2005, he was...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01319
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 | CY2006 | BC-2006-01292
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He believes that because of the erroneous information he was given about having to wait a minimum of one year for enrolling his second wife, he ended up not getting SBP before applying for a divorce from her. Therefore, he believes he should have SBP coverage for his present spouse, being effective 7 March 2006. The Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) records reflect he divorced...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03512
He was not aware that he had to file for a change in spouse coverage. The parties divorced on 26 Nov 86 and the divorce decree ordered that the member continue SBP on the former spouse’s behalf. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02726
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: At the time of the servicemember’s retirement on 1 April 1976, he and the applicant were married and he declined to elect spouse coverage under the SBP. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR states the laws that controlled SBP precluded a married servicemember, who declined spouse coverage at the time of retirement, from providing SBP former...
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...