RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00061
INDEX CODE: 137.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 13 JUL 08
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be refunded the Survivor Benefit Program (SBP) premiums deducted
from his pay.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was reinstated to active duty in Sep 06 after having previously
retired on 1 Nov 05. He paid SBP premiums for nearly a year. Since
he has been reinstated to active duty as though he never retired, he
should not have been required to pay SBP premiums as an active duty
member.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided documentation
pertaining to the correction of his military records.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
major, with a date of rank of 1 Jan 06. His Total Active Federal
Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 16 Sep 85.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air
Force.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
DFAS-RPB-TQAL/CL recommends denial noting the applicant’s name was
originally placed on the retired list on 1 Nov 05. Subsequent action
by the Board corrected his records to show his name was not placed on
the retired list, but that he was continued on active duty. As a
result of the correction of records, there was no entitlement to
retired pay.
DFAS-RPB-TQAL/CL indicated that since the applicant was no longer
entitled to retired pay, the full gross amount of the retired pay paid
to him became an overpayment. This overpayment totaled $28,523.00.
As the SBP costs previously deducted from pay each month were not
physically removed from the Retirement Trust Fund, the costs paid,
$191.07, were used to reduce the total debt to $28,331.93. As the SBP
costs deducted were utilized to reduce his overpayment, there are no
amounts due to the applicant.
A complete copy of the DFAS-RPB-TQAL/CL evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 20
Apr 07 for review and response within 30 days. As of this date, no
response has been received by this office (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 the applicant has not been the victim of an error
or injustice. We note that because of the applicant’s reinstatement
to active duty, he was no longer entitled to retired pay. Therefore,
the full gross amount of the retirement pay he received became an
overpayment. It appears the SBP costs were used to reduce his total
indebtedness. Therefore, we find no evidence the applicant is
entitled to be refunded the SBP premiums deducted from his pay. In
view of the foregoing, and in the absence of sufficient 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-
2007-00061 in Executive Session on 23 Aug 07, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member
Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Jan 07, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Letter, DFAS-RPB-TQAL/CL, dated 16 Apr 07.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Apr 07.
KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2007-03726
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are at Exhibits B and H. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: DFAS-RPB-TQAL/CL indicates that in order to make an election into the SBP open season, a payment of a buy in premium was required to cover the period of time...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02431
However, he was placed on the retired list effective 1 June 2001 and received retired pay through November 2001. Although he was selected for continuation on active duty, the Retirements Processing Section at AFPC was not notified until after the 1 June 2001 retirement had consummated in MilPDS. The AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: While AFPC contends he was an active duty...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01117
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01117 INDEX CODE: 137.04 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 9 October 2008 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Corrective action be taken to reinstate the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) on her behalf. To withdraw from SBP under this provision, the member, or legal guardian...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC 2009 00776
Title 10 USC, Section 1174h requires SSB payments must be recouped from any future military retired pay by withholding a percentage of the retired pay until the gross amount is collected. On 25 November 2008, the applicant received notification from DFAS that her SSB would begin to be recouped from her monthly retired pay in the amount of $1,703.53 beginning with her pay check dated, 2 February 2009. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01772
He was unsuccessful in resolving the issue over the telephone so he completed a corrected DD Form 2656 and sent it to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) office. In support of his request the applicant submits a personal statement, copies of the original and corrected DD Forms 2656, and a letter from DFAS dated 12 April 2012. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: DFAS-RPB-JBJE/CL states the applicant signed the DD Form 2656...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01199
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 | CY2006 | BC-2005-01370
A complete copy of the DFAS-RPB-TQAL/CL evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPD recommended denial indicating the applicant’s DD Form 214 not be amended or changed reflect that she was medically retired on a later date since she was permanently retired after her DD Form 214 was issued. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02954
_________________________________________________________________ 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. DPPRT’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit B. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05161
She contacted DFAS several times because the deduction out of her retired pay had not been increased and remained the 10 percent as it was when her brother was beneficiary. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: DFAS-JBJE/CL, Retirement and Annuity Pay, recommend the applicants record be corrected to show that she did not make a subsequent NIP election after the death of her brother. As of this date, no response has been received by this...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05614
There is no evidence of Air Force error in this case and absent a competing claimant, DPFFF recommends the decedents record be corrected to reflect that on 1 Jul 87, he elected to change RCSBP spouse to former spouse coverage based on full retired pay, naming the applicant as the eligible beneficiary. SBP premiums were deducted from the decedents retired pay until his 28 Jun 11 death. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to...