RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-01240
INDEX CODE: 137.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected in a manner which would allow him to elect
Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage for his current spouse.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was divorced in January 1990 from his former spouse but remained in
the SBP program. In June 1998, during an open season he terminated
his former spouse coverage under the SBP. He did receive a copy of
the Afterburner in 2005, but misread the information regarding SBP
elections. He then contacted the SBP office at Whiteman AFB, MO and
was informed he had to wait for the next open season.
In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement, a
copy of his current marriage license, and a copy of his divorce
decree.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Prior to his 1 Nov 72 retirement, the applicant was married and
elected spouse-only coverage under the SBP. He and his first spouse
were divorced in March 1977. He did not report his divorce to the
finance center and his account was adjusted and premiums were refunded
for the period he did not have an eligible beneficiary. He remarried
on 20 Apr 80 and spouse coverage was transferred to his new spouse in
April 1981. They were divorced on 17 Jan 90 and the divorce decree
was silent on the SBP. He voluntarily elected to change from spouse
to former spouse coverage.
In November 1991, he submitted a similar application to the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) requesting to
terminate his former spouse SBP coverage. The AFBCMR denied his
request on 13 Aug 92.
On 26 Jun 97, he submitted a valid request to the Defense Finance
Accounting Service (DFAS) during an authorized open season to
terminate his former SBP spouse coverage. His former spouse concurred
in the election and DFAS terminated his former spouse coverage on
20 Jul 98.
He remarried again on 23 Jul 04.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIAR recommends denial. DPSIAR states his request to void his
former spouse election was previously addressed by the AFBCMR.
Information about discontinuing participation was published in the May
and September 1998 Afterburner, News For USAF Retired Personnel, which
were sent to his address he provided to DFAS. The Afterburner
stressed the potential impact of disenrolling. The May 1998 issue had
an article which stated "if the decision is finally made to disenroll,
it should be with the understanding that it is something that may
never be undone. The application used to discontinue enrollment in
SBP states "I further understand that once I discontinue SBP, I cannot
reenter the Plan." Furthermore, to allow the applicant an opportunity
to restore his SBP coverage would be inequitable to other retirees
similarly situated, and is not justified by the intent of the law or
the evidence presented.
AFPC/DPSIAR's complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 27 Jun 08, for review and comment within 30 days. As of
this date, no response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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 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 an injustice. 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-
2008-01240 in Executive Session on 23 Oct 08, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Mr. Elwood C Lewis III, Member
Mr. Kurt R. LaFrance, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 Mar 08, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSIAR, dated 11 Jun 08.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Jun 08.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-01572
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her late husband paid SBP premiums for his former spouse’s SBP coverage from January 1996 to June 2004, even though the former spouse remarried in September 2003 before her 55th birthday. The complete DFAS evaluation is at Exhibit B. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRB Legal Advisor, dated 15 Nov 12, Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 Dec 12, w/atch.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-02601
He requested his former spouse be removed from SBP and stated that his current spouse wished to waive her right to SBP coverage. The finance center received his notification of divorce in Oct 95 and SBP spouse coverage and premiums were suspended. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant provided a notarized statement from his current spouse waiving her right to SBP spouse coverage dated 15 Sep 08 (Exhibit D).
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01800
On 12 Oct 90, the parties divorced and the applicant was ordered to elect SBP on behalf of his former spouse. Neither party submitted an election for former spouse coverage within the first year of the divorce; however, the member did not request his former spouse be removed as the SBP beneficiary. The complete DPSIAR evaluation is at Exhibit B.
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03740
The personnel advising him at the time he secured a military identification for his wife should have informed him of benefits available under the SBP. Under the SBP program, the law authorized enrollment periods 1 Mar 99 to 29 Feb 00 and 1 Oct 05 to 30 Sep 06, for retired member to elect SBP coverage. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01351
DPSIDAR states that there is no evidence of Air Force error in this case; however, in the absence of a competing claimant and to prevent a possible injustice, they recommend the decedent’s record be corrected to reflect he elected former spouse coverage based on full retired pay, naming APPLICANT as the former spouse beneficiary, effective 11 January 2005. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 02043
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: While married, the member elected spouse and child coverage based on a reduced level of retired pay under the SBP prior to his 1 Jun 73 retirement. There is no record of marriage at the time of his death. While counsel argues the former member never married; the evidence of record, specifically, the death certificate states otherwise.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00062
She indicates there is no evidence the deceased former member elected former spouse coverage for any of his former spouses. In Dec 92, DFAS received an SBP Open Enrollment Election form from the member requesting to change the applicants coverage from spouse to former spouse. A complete copy of the AFRBA Legal Advisor evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant contends...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-03347
The parties divorced on 13 Nov 84, and the divorce decree ordered the member to continue the SBP on the applicant’s behalf. The deceased member’s decision not to voluntarily elect former spouse SBP coverage on the applicant’s behalf shows his intent not to provide SBP for her. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case, to include her response to the Air Force evaluation; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-02569
His record contains a copy of a 28 Apr 93 letter from DFAS-DE advising him, among other things, that the 12 Feb 93 open enrollment election he submitted was “invalid” because block 10 did not indicate the base amount upon which he wished to establish coverage. His open enrollment election form contained what appears to be the monthly SBP premium amount he thought would be collected from his retired pay if he elected coverage on a reduced level of retired pay. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02108
The applicant and service member divorced on 17 Nov 89, and the divorce order directed the service member pay the monthly SBP premiums for the applicant. The complete AFPC/DPSIAR evaluation is at Exhibit B. SAF/MRB Legal Advisor indicates there are no extraordinary facts or equities which merit granting the relief sought, unless the widow relinquishes her right to the annuity. Further complicating this case is the fact that after he remarried, the deceased former member failed to elect...