RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-03095
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
She be allowed to terminate spouse only coverage under the
Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was told she could cancel SBP and not told she had to wait
two years to do so.
The applicant does not provide any evidence in support of her
appeal.
The applicants complete submission is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who
was honorably discharged in the grade of master sergeant (E-7)
on 30 April 2009 and retired effective 1 May 2009. On 6 January
2006, she elected spouse only SBP coverage based on full retired
pay. Since she elected maximum spouse coverage, her husbands
concurrence was not required.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ARPC/DPSIAR recommends denial. DPSIAR states that each member
attends a one-on-one SBP briefing given by an SBP counselor
prior to their retirement and while SBP counselors present facts
and explain the provisions of the program during pre-retirement
counseling, members are responsible for making the election that
best meets their particular situation. The applicants husband
did not attend the SBP briefing; however, a notification letter
was forwarded to him on 4 November 2008, fully describing the
options and effects of the SBP. The applicant had time to
change her election, with her husbands concurrence, prior to
her retirement date. The SBP counselor provided a copy of the
SBP Report of Individual Personnel (RIP) the applicant signed,
acknowledging she understood the options and effects of her
actions pertaining to her SBP election. Item N1(A) of the RIP
clearly states there is a one-year window to request termination
of all participation, which opens on the second anniversary of
her retirement.
DPSIAR indicates there is no evidence of an Air Force error or
injustice in this case. Approval of this request would provide
the applicant an opportunity not afforded to other retirees;
however, she may disenroll with her husbands concurrence,
during the one-year period beginning 1 May 2011 as authorized by
Public Law 105-85.
The complete DPSIAR evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 30 October 2009 for review and comment within 30
days (Exhibit D). 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. Therefore, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
4. 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 AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2009-03095 in Executive Session on 1 April 2010, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection
with AFBCMR Docket No. BC-2009-03095:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Aug 09.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIAR, dated 14 Oct 09.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Oct 09.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2011-05136
Therefore, she is requesting that she be allowed to establish SBP coverage for her spouse at the same rate, base amount and coverage he elected for her. According to the information provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, the applicant and her spouse were married, but she declined SBP coverage prior to her 1 Jun 2009 retirement and her spouse concurred with her election. _______________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00900
As he did not elect coverage for his wife prior to his retirement, he may not establish SBP coverage for his spouse except during congressionally approved open enrollment periods. DPSIAR notes there is no error or injustice in this case and that the applicant had three opportunities to elect SBP coverage for his wife. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant contends the reason he did not take advantage of...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 04015
________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIAR recommends denial and states there is no evidence of an error or injustice. Each person attends a one- on-one SBP briefing given by an SBP counselor prior to their retirement and while SBP counselors present facts and explain the provisions of the program during the pre-retirement counseling, members are ultimately responsible for making the election that best meets their particular...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01593
He was also briefed he could change it later, but was not informed that once he separated from the Air Force he could not remove his wife from SBP for two years. In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of a signed letter from his wife. The applicant had time to change his election, with his wifes concurrence, prior to his retirement date.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00088
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She worked in the SBP office prior to her medical retirement when she filled out the SBP paperwork and sent it to her husband (who was in Army Basic Training at the time) for his concurrence. As of Apr 08, the SBP office had not received the DD Form 2656 signed by the applicants spouse. The DPSIAR complete evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02926
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) reflect the applicant married on 24 June 1994 and he made a valid SBP election for spouse and child coverage based on full retired pay, prior to being placed on the Permanent Disability Retirement List (PDRL) effective 18 April 2006. The applicant was provided a retirement pay estimate of $1,894 with a monthly cost estimate of $126 for full spouse...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00308
Although the SBP RIP was dated after the election was made, there is no evidence the applicant was not counseled on the SBP at the time he completed the form. Furthermore, the applicant could have made changes to his SBP election any time prior to his retirement date. We took notice of the applicants 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00432
The complete AFPC/DPSIAR evaluation is at Exhibit B. SAF/MRB Legal Advisor recommends denial of the applicants request as this case presents the Board with competing interests between the former spouse and the applicant. Given the competing interests and the absence of a valid, timely election, the Board should follow the long standing SAF/GCM guidance not to correct an existing record when "the result would be unfavorable to another person eligible to seek relief from the BCMR. The...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02577
In support of her request, the applicant provided a copy of her DD Form 2656, Data for Payment of Retired Personnel, DD Form 2656-2, Survivor benefit Plan (SBP) Termination Request, and a letter from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) Retired and Annuity Pay Office. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02406
It would be inequitable to those members who chose to elect spouse coverage when eligible and subsequently received reduced retired pay, to provide an additional opportunity for this member to change his SBP election. It was not until June 2012 during his spouse's one-on-one SBP and VGLI briefings at the Pentagon that they clearly learned that SBP and VGLI were not combined programs. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board...