RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00088
INDEX CODE: 137.04
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) be changed to child only coverage.
___________________________________________________________________
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. She
was not on good terms with her supervisor because she had to attend
countless medical appointments; her supervisor did not like her
absences from work. She submitted an Inspector General (IG)
complaint for unfair treatment, but does not know if her complaint
was investigated. The doctors did not believe there was anything
wrong with her; however, she has since had two brain surgeries.
She received a 2 on her enlisted performance report (EPR) for not
participating in physical training; they thought she was faking her
medical problems. She loved the Air Force and is now reduced to
using a walker and can not work.
In support of her request, applicant provides a copy of a letter
from her husband and a copy of her orders.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant served on active duty and has been progressively
promoted to the grade of technical sergeant.
According to the applicants DD Form 2656, Data for Payment of
Retired Personnel, she elected child(ren) only coverage based on
full gross pay without supplemental SBP. Her spouse did not attend
the one-on-one briefing. The SBP office sent the applicants
spouse a notification that required a written concurrence since she
did not choose to provide maximum coverage for him. As of Apr 08,
the SBP office had not received the DD Form 2656 signed by the
applicants spouse. On 24 Apr 08, the applicant was placed on the
TDRL.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIAR recommends denial. DPSIAR states the applicant was
married with an eligible dependent child and elected child only SBP
coverage based on full retired pay prior to being placed on the
Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL). The applicants husband
did not complete or submit a statement concurring in her election
prior to the retirement effective date. The applicant was properly
briefed on the SBP options and its effects prior to her retirement,
including the disenrollment provision. Although she provided a
notarized statement from her husband, the statement did not
acknowledge him permanently waiving his entitlement to the
$1,032.00 SBP annuity in the event of her death. The applicant
will be authorized to disenroll her husband with written
concurrence beginning 24 Apr 10. Since there is no evidence of an
error or injustice, and no basis in law to grant relief, DPSIAR can
not support the applicants request.
The DPSIAR complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant responded by providing a notarized statement from her
husband in which he agrees to child only SBP coverage.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit E.
___________________________________________________________________
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.
_________________________________________________________________
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-2010-00088 in Executive Session on 1 Apr 10, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Dec 09, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIAR, dated 4 Feb 10.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Feb 10.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicants Spouse, dated 22 Feb 10.
Panel ChairAF | 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-2010-03963
The applicant completed an election to decline SBP coverage; however, her husbands concurrence was dated prior to the date of her signature, invalidating the election. DPSIAR on 5 November 2010, they requested the applicant obtain a notarized statement signed by her husband to acknowledge he understands retired pay ceases when the applicant dies and approval of her request would result in him receiving no monetary benefit from the Air Force upon her death. As of this date, this office has...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-02275
He faxed his election not to participate in the SBP four times and the Defense Finance Accounting Service (DFAS) enrolled them in SBP against their will. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit C. _______________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIAR recommends denial. The complete AFPC/DPSIAR evaluation is at Exhibit...
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-2012-00432
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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-00798
DPSIAR states the applicant was properly briefed on the options and effects of the SBP by the Dyess Air Force Base SBP counselor prior to retirement, including the disenrollment provision. There is no provision in the law that allows the one-year disenrollment period to be extended or suspended because a member is recalled to active duty. His wife’s notarized signature on the DD Form 2656-2 is included with his rebuttal.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-01547
DPSIAR states there is evidence of Air Force error; therefore, they recommend the applicant’s record be corrected to reflect she submitted a valid SBP election for child only coverage based on full retired pay effective 1 Nov 04. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 1 November 2004, she submitted a valid election for child...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02793
Furthermore, Section V of the DD Form 2656-2 clearly instructed members to have their spouses’ signature notarized if not signed in front of an SBP counselor prior to submitting the form. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: It is evident to her that the DD Form 2656-2 was not completed properly due to a discrepancy between the date of their signatures and the date it was notarized. In their previous advisory, dated...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04100
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Public Law (PL) 99-145 requires spouses of married servicemembers to concur in writing prior to the servicemember’s retirement, in the SBP election that provides less than full spouse coverage. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR states the applicant contends the finance center did not have her husband’s information to process an election. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018041
The ABCMR analyst of record telephonically contacted the DFAS Retired Pay Office on 23 January 2009, which confirmed that the DD Form 2656, dated 10 July 2008 was not authenticated by the spouse on or after the date the applicant made his election. In a notarized statement, dated 27 January 2009, the applicant's spouse indicated that she had previously agreed with her husband's decision to not participate in the SBP and that she previously signed the one form provided by the Fort Drum, NY,...