Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-03347
Original file (BC-2009-03347.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2009-03347
            INDEX CODE:  137.04
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her former spouse’s records be corrected to  show  that  he  elected  former
spouse coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her former spouse was required by court order  to  elect  coverage  for  her
under SBP; however, he failed to make the election in accordance with  their
divorce decree.  She  never  received  notice  that  she  could  submit  her
election to the Defense Finance and Accounting Services (DFAS)  office.   If
she had been notified, she would have done so.

In support of the application, the applicant  submits  copies  of  a  letter
from DFAS, her former spouse’s  death  certificate,  a  DD  Form  1883,  SBP
Election Certificate, and her divorce decree.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant and former military member were  married  on  1  Mar  63.   He
elected spouse and child SBP coverage based on full  retired  pay  prior  to
his 1 Sep 79 retirement.  The youngest child lost eligibility in Jun 80  due
to age.  The parties divorced on 13 Nov 84, and the divorce  decree  ordered
the member to continue the SBP on the applicant’s  behalf.   However,  there
is no evidence the member submitted an election change to  establish  former
spouse coverage on behalf of the applicant within the first  year  following
their divorce.  The monthly SBP premiums ceased  in  Nov  84.   The  Defense
Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System  (DEERS)  records  show  the  member
remarried on 20 Dec  03;  however,  there  is  no  indication  the  decedent
requested his new spouse be named as  his  SBP  beneficiary.   There  is  no
evidence on how or when the marriage ended, but the deceased member’s  death
certificate shows his marital status as divorced.

_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPSIAR recommends denial.  DPSIAR states a person’s  eligibility  to
receive a spouse SBP annuity terminates upon divorce.  Public Law  (PL)  98-
525 (19 Oct 84) permitted former spouses  to  request  an  SBP  election  be
deemed on their behalf if the member agreed to  continue  the  coverage  and
the court properly incorporated that agreement into the  court  order.   The
laws did not  permit  former  spouse  coverage  under  the  same  costs  and
provisions as spouse coverage until enactment of PL 99-145 (8  Nov  85,  but
effective 1 Mar 86).  The legislation authorized a one-year  period  (8  Nov
85 – 7 Nov 86) to elect former spouse coverage.  On 14  Nov  86,  PL  99-661
empowered Courts to mandate former  spouse  coverage  without  the  member’s
agreement in court orders issued on or after 14 Nov 86.

Since the courts were not empowered to mandate former  spouse  SBP  coverage
until 14 Nov 86, after the parties divorced, the language of  their  divorce
was  and  is  unenforceable.   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.

The complete DPSIAR evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states she had no contact with her former spouse  since  their
divorce.  The divorce decree required her former spouse to pay her  half  of
his military retirement pay and continue payment of SBP premiums.   She  did
not know about the policy on former spouse election nor did  she  know  that
the judge who rendered his decision on the divorce decree may not have  been
within his authority based on the laws at that time.

If she had known that her former spouse had disobeyed the  court  order  and
not continued the SBP coverage, she would have  acted  promptly  to  correct
this matter.

The applicant’s complete statement is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided  by  existing  law  or
regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest  of
justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

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,  to  include  her
response to the Air Force evaluation; 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.

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in  Executive
Session on 22 Jun 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Panel Chair
      Member
      Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to  AFBCMR  BC-2009-03347  was
considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Sep 09, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSIAR, dated 5 Nov 09.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Nov 09.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, not dated.



                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01225

    Original file (BC 2014 01225.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    PL 97-252 (8 Sep 82) permitted retiring members to provide SBP coverage for their former spouses under the insurable interest option. It is recommended that the deceased former member’s record be corrected to reflect that on 1 Mar 86, he elected to change SBP former spouse coverage under the insurable interest option to former spouse coverage under the spouse coverage option, naming the applicant as the eligible former spouse beneficiary, and she concurred in the change. THE BOARD...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01754

    Original file (BC-2009-01754.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of the application, the applicant submits a copy of her final divorce decree and her former spouse's death certificate. Moreover, there is no divorce decree requiring SBP (perhaps because it was not within court authority to order it at that time). The complete SAF/MRB Legal Advisor's evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel for the applicant states a former military spouse...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 03737

    Original file (BC 2007 03737.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Even though the SBP was not addressed in the divorce decree, the member could have elected former spouse coverage voluntarily within the first year following the divorce, but failed to do so. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02569

    Original file (BC-2010-02569.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The deceased member elected spouse and child SBP coverage based on full-retired pay during the initial enrollment period. DPSIAR states 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’ eligibility; therefore, the fact the divorce decree mentioned the SBP does not provide standing to establish SBP coverage on the applicant’s behalf. We took notice of the applicant's...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01307

    Original file (BC-2012-01307.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    If neither the member nor the spouse requests the election change during the one-year eligibility period, former spouse coverage may not be established thereafter. Even though a member fails to notify DFAS—Cleveland (DFAS-CL) of the divorce and continues to pay SBP premiums afterword, the former spouse is not eligible for annuity payments upon the member’s death. However, should the applicant provide a notarized statement from the deceased former member’s widow relinquishing her...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04466

    Original file (BC-2011-04466.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: She and her deceased former spouse were married on 10 Nov 1961 and divorced on 13 Dec 2002. While we do not take issue with the applicant’s assertion that her divorce decree ordered her deceased former husband to continue coverage for her under the SBP, he failed to convert the coverage to former spouse coverage within one year of their divorce as required by law. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01800

    Original file (BC-2012-01800.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2010 | BC-2010-00171

    Original file (BC-2010-00171.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00171 INDEX CODE: 137.04 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her former spouse’s records be corrected to show he made a timely election for former spouse coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). There is no evidence the applicant or former spouse submitted a valid SBP election to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04512

    Original file (BC-2010-04512.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-04512 in Executive Session on 4 Aug...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02108

    Original file (BC-2011-02108.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...