RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01450
INDEX CODE: 137.04
xxxxxxxxxxx COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 11 NOVEMBER 2008
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. His records be corrected to show he declined Survivor Benefit Plan
(SBP) coverage and that the requirement for his wife to concur in the
election be waived.
2. The SBP premiums deducted from November 2006 to present be reimbursed.
3. The legal fees he incurred be reimbursed.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
In February 2002, his wife was diagnosed with a brain disease that is
causing atrophy in her brain. His wife has lost most of her capabilities.
Although she is still mobile she is very unstable with greatly hindered
communications skills. His wife’s waiver election package was denied due
to a lack of supporting documentation concerning his wife’s capabilities.
He believes his case has been mishandled from the beginning and unjustly
decided on by those who demonstrate a lack of concern for his family. He
has done everything he was asked to do for the waiver and believes his
family has been done wrong and seeks to make it right.
In support of his appeal, applicant provides a personal statement, a copy
of his durable power of attorney, petition for guardianship, personal will,
medical documents concerning his wife’s condition and other associated
documents regarding his request for waiver of spouse concurrence in SBP
election.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The Military Personnel Database System reflects the applicant retired
effective 1 November 2006 in the grade of master sergeant.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from
the applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by
the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPTR recommends the application be denied. DPPTR states that on 7
June 2006, the applicant submitted a request for waiver of his wife’s
concurrence based on her medical condition and provided a power of attorney
(POA). AFPC/JA reviewed the applicant’s request and opined that his
request be denied. The applicant provided a Consent to the Appointment of
a Guardianship order from the Illinois Circuit Court, appointing him
guardian of his wife. AFPC/JA again reviewed his waiver request and stated
that there is a “direct conflict of interest in the member making an SBP
decision on his wife’s behalf” and determined that the original decision to
deny should remain. The AFPC/DPPTR 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 15
June 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 have reviewed the available evidence
pertaining to the applicant’s request that his records be corrected to show
he declined SBP coverage and that the requirement for his wife’s
concurrence be waived. His contentions in this regard are duly noted;
however, we agree with the Air Force offices of primary responsibility that
have previously reviewed his request, that allowing him to make this
decision on his wife's behalf appears to create a conflict of interest and
is contrary to the intent of the statutory requirement for her consent.
Therefore, it is our opinion that the provisions of Public Law 99-145 have
been appropriately applied.
4. We have noted the applicant’s request for reimbursement for the legal
fees he has incurred. The law under which this Board operates authorizes
the payment of monies due as a result of a correction of the record to
rectify an error and/or an injustice. Therefore, favorable consideration
of this portion of his request is not within the Boards purview.
5. 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 issues 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-2007-01450
in Executive Session on 26 September 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Kathleen F. Graham., Panel Chair
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2007-
01450 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 May 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPPRT, dated 8 Jun 07.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Jun 07.
KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
Panel Chair
On 26 September 1997, the applicant divorced and he submitted a copy of the divorce decree to DFAS-CL, and spouse premiums and coverage have been suspended. 97- 03000 AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief , Retiree Services Branch, Directorate of Pers Program Management, AFPC/DPPTR, reviewed this application and states that when a member fails to make an SBP election prior to retirement or fails to obtain a valid spouse concurrence in an election that does not provide maximum spouse coverage,...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-01626
If there were not a competing eligible beneficiary, or that beneficiary would consent to the change via a notarized statement, he would recommend correcting the record. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D The deceased member’s widow provided a notarized statement stating in part, that she and her deceased husband had an understanding that the ex-wife (who is the applicant), would receive the SBP benefits. KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2007-01626 MEMORANDUM FOR THE...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03326
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 | CY2006 | BC-2006-01563
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: At the time of his retirement, he and his wife were separated and at her counsel’s recommendation, she did not sign the SBP concurrence statement prior to his retirement. Absent a valid election, the finance center established spouse and child coverage based on full, retired pay to comply with the law. DPPTR’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01425
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 | CY2007 | BC-2007-01439
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02555
For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s request, and, the rationale for the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit D. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit B. Absent persuasive evidence, applicant was denied rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations were...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03076
There is no evidence of Air Force error or injustice in this case. 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. Novel, Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Aug 04, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01000
The parties divorced on 26 December 1985 and in the marital settlement agreement the member agreed to designate the applicant as beneficiary to the SBP. 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 AFBCMR Legal Advisor and adopt his rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice requiring corrective action by this Board. ...
HQ AFPC/JA informally advised the AFBCMR Staff that unless the divorced party can prove, either in a court of the country in which the divorce was obtained or in a United States court, that the foreign divorce was not in compliance with the laws of the foreign country, the divorce cannot be voided. If legally married to the decedent at the time the POA was issued, the applicant should have been entitled to a dependent ID card. The Chief advises that, should the Board grant relief, approval...