Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-00722
Original file (BC-2009-00722.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
ADDENDUM TO 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00722 

 COUNSEL: 

 HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her deceased former spouse’s record be changed to show he elected 
former spouse coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

A similar appeal was considered and denied by the Board on 20 May 
2009. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances 
surrounding the applicant’s appeal and the rationale of the 
earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at 
Exhibit E. 

 

In a letter, with attachments, dated 13 May 2009, the applicant 
requests reconsideration. She states when the prenuptial 
agreement is compared to the divorce decree, the decree 
specifically spells out her entitlement to the survivor’s 
benefits rights. The Air Force is partly at fault because under 
the retiree account statement, they have continually listed her 
social security number, not his surviving spouse. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit F. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

In an earlier finding, the Board determined there was 
insufficient evidence to warrant any corrective action. After 
thoroughly reviewing the additional documentation submitted in 
support of this appeal and the evidence of record, we do not 
believe the applicant has overcome the rationale expressed in the 
previous decision. Therefore, we do not find the additional 
evidence presented is sufficient to compel us to recommend 
granting the relief sought on that basis. In the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to 
recommend favorable consideration of the applicant’s request. 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2009-00722 in Executive Session on 4 June 2010, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit E. Record of Proceedings, dated 28 May 2009, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 13 May 2009, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 

 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02611-2

    Original file (BC-2010-02611-2.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit F. On 30 November 2012, the applicant’s counsel submitted a request for reconsideration based on their submission of affidavits from the applicant’s former husband (member) and his current spouse agreeing to the requested relief and voluntarily relinquishing all rights and/or benefits under the member’s pre- and post-retirement...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2000-00961-2

    Original file (BC-2000-00961-2.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A summary of the evidence considered and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board is set forth in the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit F. On 10 January 2002, in response to a congressional inquiry, in behalf of the applicant, the AFBCMR denied the applicant’s request for reconsideration of her application (Refer to Exhibit G). To support this assertion, the applicant provided a personal statement, a statement from a Forensic Investigator who opines that the signature on the letter...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-1995-00482A

    Original file (BC-1995-00482A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    While we are not unsympathetic to the applicant’s situation, in the absence of any evidence which would lead us to believe that she took any action which could be construed as meeting the statutory requirements for a request for a deemed election for former spouse SBP coverage, a majority of the Board concludes that the applicant has failed to establish the existence of error or injustice. BARBARA A. WESTGATE Chair MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01494

    Original file (BC-2010-01494.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the applicant’s records be corrected to show at the time of his retirement, he elected SBP coverage for his spouse and children, with a reduced base amount of $2365.00, and that his SBP election be changed to former spouse coverage, effective 1 Oct 07. The deemed election was not processed because the applicant’s SBP election indicated that he declined coverage (at the time of his active duty retirement). The former spouse is not entitled to SBP coverage based on the original...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00868-2

    Original file (BC-2006-00868-2.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    There is no evidence the veteran remarried and SBP premiums continued to be deducted from his retired pay until his death on 3 Dec 05. In their advisory (Exhibit B), HQ AFPC/DPPRT indicated the applicant’s submission was incomplete but if she provided the necessary documents, it would be appropriate to correct the veteran’s record to reflect he elected to change SBP spouse coverage to former spouse coverage based on the previous reduced level of retired pay, naming the applicant as...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01019

    Original file (BC-2005-01019.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    (Note: At the time of the decedent’s election for spouse coverage, the finance center incorrectly entered 5 June 1940 vice 5 Jul 1940 as the applicant’s date of birth [DOB]) The parties divorced on 28 July 1986 and the court ordered that SBP coverage continue on the applicant’s behalf. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 27 October 2005, under the provisions of AFI...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02160 ADDENDUM

    Original file (BC-2010-02160 ADDENDUM.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the application, and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit F. On 16 March 2011, applicant provided a notarized statement from his spouse relinquishing her entitlement to the SBP annuity (Exhibit G). We note the applicant has provided a notarized statement from his spouse relinquishing her entitlement to the SBP. Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2010-02160 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04295

    Original file (BC-2010-04295.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04295 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be entitled to benefits under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIAR did not provide a recommendation. The complete AFRBA Legal Advisor...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03286

    Original file (BC-2008-03286.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Legal Advisor states that although the applicant was directed by the 1998 divorce decree to continue coverage on the former spouse; federal law does not provide provisions for elections that are not made in a timely manner. The BCMR Legal Advisory, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: She responded to correct an error in the Legal Advisory which states that the spouse is deceased;...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-00939

    Original file (BC-2009-00939.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Legal Advisor indicates the Board should not grant the applicant’s request regarding the SBP. If there were not a competing beneficiary, he would recommend granting the applicant’s appeal and correcting the record. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded the former member’s records should be changed to make the applicant an eligible former spouse SBP beneficiary.