RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00425
INDEX CODE: 137.04
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His record be corrected to show that he elected spouse coverage
for his wife under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
When he retired from the Air Force, he was not married and was
never informed that he had only a 12-month window to apply for
SBP coverage.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his
marriage certificate, his spouses Identification (ID) Card, and
a letter to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS).
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
According to the Military Personnel Data System, the applicant
served in the Regular Air Force with a Pay Date of 8 September
1973. He was promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel (O-5)
effective and with a date of rank of 5 December 1992. The
applicant was honorably released from active duty effective
31 December 2000 and retired on 1 January 2001.
The remaining relevant facts are contained in the letter prepared
by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) at
Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIAR recommends denial. DPSIAR states the applicant was
not married and declined SBP coverage prior to his 1 January 2001
retirement. He married his wife on 7 July 2007, but failed to
submit a valid election within the first year of marriage. On
16 November 2009, DFAS received a letter from the applicant
requesting to have his retirement benefit adjusted to include
his wife. DFAS did not honor his request since it was unclear
and it was not within the first year of his marriage.
DPSIAR indicates the applicants claim he was never informed that
he only had 12 months to apply for SBP coverage is without merit.
A copy of the SBP Report on Individual Personnel (RIP) located in
his records show he signed the certification sheet on 7 December
2000, indicating he was properly briefed on the options and
effects of the Plan. Furthermore, the Afterburner, News for USAF
Retired Personnel, routinely contains articles to advise retirees
of their SBP options when marrying after retirement. Had he
submitted an election within the first year of marriage, monthly
premiums would have been approximately $265 and SBP costs of
about $5,035 would have been deducted from his pay to date.
Since he failed to submit a valid election within the first year
of marriage, coverage for his wife can only be provided if
Congress authorized another open enrollment. It is DPSIARs
opinion that providing this applicant an additional opportunity
to elect SBP coverage would be inequitable to other retirees in
similar situations and is not justified by the facts.
The complete DPSIAR evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
He would like to make it clear that he is not trying to place
fault with anyone or any organization for his situation. He
remembered having a retirement briefing many years ago and an
extensive checklist was involved. He thinks it is unreasonable
to expect anyone to remember seven or eight years after the fact
the specifics of having to enroll ones spouse in SBP within the
first year of marriage. As critical as this requirement is, he
would have expected the subject to be mentioned during his wifes
out-processing for her ID card. He feels very disappointed that
his wife and he are excluded from this benefit. He is willing to
pay the sum necessary to bring the fund to a current level so the
government does not incur any additional expense. He thinks his
21 years of faithful service to our country warrants a second
chance.
The applicants complete rebuttal 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 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; 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-2010-00425 in Executive Session on 15 September 2010,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-00425:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Jan 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIAR, dated 26 Feb 10.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Mar 10.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Mar 10.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00221
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00221 INDEX CODE: 137.04 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His record be corrected to show that he was not married at the time he retired from the Air Force; and, to allow him to elect spouse coverage for his current wife under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). In...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC 2010 02805
The applicant provided a copy of his 6 March 2008 letter to DFAS in which he claims he had requested SBP coverage be established for his wife by the middle of June 2005. However, DFAS records contain no evidence he submitted a valid request to elect SBP coverage for his wife within the first year of marriage. DPSIAR indicates the applicants intentions to provide SBP coverage for his wife are clear and apparently sincere; however, specific and timely action is required to elect SBP...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02880
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02880 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her deceased former spouses record be changed to show he elected spouse coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The decedent and the applicant were...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01895
________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force (exhibit B). The applicant married his wife on 17 December 2009, but failed to notify DFAS of the change to his marital status or request SBP coverage be established on his wifes behalf within the first year of their marriage. We took notice of the applicant's complete...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01043
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 (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02536
He did not submit a request to enroll his spouse in SBP within the first year of their marriage. The OPR states he was mailed the August 2005 and 2006 editions of the Afterburner, and he should have been placed on notice that he had one year to enroll his spouse in SBP. As we understand the crux of counsels argument in behalf of the applicant, the applicants record should be corrected to reflect a timely election of coverage for his spouse under SBP because the Air Force failed to...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2011-05023
However, they were married on 3 Jan 2011. In order for a spouse, who married a member after his/her retirement, to be considered eligible for the SBP annuity, the post-retirement marriage must endure for one full year from the date of marriage. Although the applicant provides evidence that recognizes their relationship as a marriage, the law requires a member to be married for one full year before the widow is eligible for SBP payments, assuming the member...
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 | 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 | CY2013 | BC-2012-02487
DFAS records reflect the applicant did not report the divorce until 22 February 2010, but at that time, the spouse’s portion of SBP coverage was retroactively suspended. On 2 August 2010, the applicant notified DFAS that he had a new child, but when he remarried on 23 September 2010, there was no evidence he properly terminated spouse coverage within the first year of their marriage. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree...