RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02536 

 INDEX CODE: 137.00 

 COUNSEL: 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His records be corrected to reflect he made a timely election for 
spouse coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) and the 
requirement to pay past premiums be waived. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

At the time of his retirement in 1968 and prior to the enactment 
of the SBP he was not married and had no children. He married in 
October 2005 and did not notify the Defense Finance Accounting 
Service (DFAS) within the one year timeframe to enroll his new 
spouse in SBP. He was not notified or aware of his options in 
the SBP until he read the 2009 issue of the Afterburner. He 
submitted a request in 2009 to enroll his spouse in SBP. His 
request was denied. He further contends that retired service 
members are ordinarily notified of the options in SBP by the Afterburner, however; at the time of his marriage the Afterburner 
was not being published. 

 

His counsel further notes that the Board has allowed service 
members who failed to elect SBP within the first year of their 
marriage to correct their records to show that they elected SBP 
as evidenced in BC-2004-02286. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of 
supplemental statement, his marriage certificate, extracts from 
the Afterburner, letters from DFAS, and documents extracted from 
his military and personal records. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant retired on 1 Aug 68 and did not have an eligible 
spouse beneficiary during the SBP’s initial open enrollment 
period (21 Sep 72 – 20 Sep 73). He married on 11 Oct 05. He did 
not submit a request to enroll his spouse in SBP within the first 
year of their marriage. 


 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate offices of 
the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSIAR recommends denial. AFPC/DPSIAR states the 
applicant’s contentions are without merit. The autumn 2005 and 
August 2006 Afterburners were mailed to the correspondence 
address he provided to the finance center, the address where he 
currently resides. The Afterburner provided contact telephone 
numbers to call for additional information. There is no evidence 
he submitted a request for SBP coverage for his wife until three 
years after the first anniversary of his marriage. Had he 
submitted a valid election in a timely manner the monthly 
premiums would have been deducted from his pay. SBP is similar 
to commercial life insurance in that an individual must elect to 
participate during the opportunities provided by law and pay the 
associated premiums in order to have coverage. To approve this 
request would provide the applicant an additional opportunity to 
elect SBP not afforded other retires similarly situated and is 
not justified. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSIAR evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Applicant’s counsel states they disagree with the Air Force 
office of primary responsibility (OPR) recommendation to deny the 
applicant’s request. 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. The applicant did not get married until 11 Oct 05 and 
had no reason to note any information regarding SBP. 
Furthermore, multiple events in the latter half of 2005 make it 
unreasonable to assume he read or even received the Afterburner. 
In regard to the August 2006 Afterburner, by then he was 89 years 
old and not in the best of health and was still experiencing 
difficulties with the events of 2005. It is likely that he did 
not receive the newsletter because when he received the 2009 
issued, he applied for SBP spouse coverage. Had he received the 
only edition mailed in 2006, he would have applied for SBP at 
that time. The OPR argues that the knowledge of the SBP rules 
can be inferred from the fact that the Afterburner is mailed to 
retirees. During the four year period the applicant only 
received one copy of the newsletter. When multiple editions of 
the newsletter are mailed to a retiree it is reasonable to assume 
the retiree received one or more of the newsletters; however, 
when only one edition is mailed in several years, it is not 


reasonable to assume the retiree received it. As soon as the 
applicant was aware of he could enroll his spouse in the SBP he 
did so. 

 

The Counsel’s complete response, with attachments, 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 an error or injustice. As we 
understand the crux of counsel’s argument in behalf of the 
applicant, the applicant’s record should be corrected to reflect 
a timely election of coverage for his spouse under SBP because 
the Air Force failed to provide the applicant proper and timely 
notification of his entitlements under the SBP program. In 
particular, applicant’s counsel sets forth various arguments in 
rebuttal to the Air Force Office of primary responsibility’s 
assertion the applicant was put on notice of required action 
through the retiree publication the Afterburner. Additionally, 
counsel references an AFBCMR case involving SBP where that 
applicant was provided relief as a further basis for us to grant 
relief in this instance. 

 

Regarding notification through the Afterburner, counsel initially 
argued that the Afterburner was not being published at the time 
of the applicant’s marriage, which was refuted by the Air Force 
OPR since the Afterburner was published in August 2005 and August 
2006. When this fact was pointed out, counsel responds that 
because the applicant married in October 2005 and the Afterburner 
was published in August 2005, there was no reason for the 
applicant to take note of information regarding SBP. Counsel 
applies the same logic to any issues of the newsletter the 
applicant may have received prior to 2005, arguing that the 
applicant had always been single and had no reason to note SBP 
information. Regarding the August 2006 issue, counsel recounts a 
litany of mishaps and hardships the applicant experienced during 
this period which counsel believes casts doubt on whether the 
applicant received this issue. However, she does not mention 
whether the applicant experienced any other problems with 
delivered mail during this period. Counsel asserts the 
applicant’s affirmative action in 2009 after Afterburner 
publication resumed is evidence the applicant would have taken 
proper and timely action to obtain SBP coverage had he received 
the August 2006 issue of Afterburner. We are not so persuaded. 


Even conceding there may have been circumstances that call into 
question whether the applicant received the August 2006 issue, we 
do not find that the merits of the case hinge solely on this 
issue. We believe members have a responsibility to retain 
information that is provided about important topics such as 
retirement benefits, keep abreast of changes that impact them 
and/or inquire about how significant life changes might impact 
them. The Afterburner is a worthwhile, commendable outreach and 
education tool; it does not create a legal entitlement to 
personal notice or reminders. 

 

As applied to this case it appears reasonable to this Board the 
applicant would have given some contemplation to what benefits 
his future spouse would receive after marriage to him. In any 
event we feel the applicant failed to exercise reasonable 
diligence in determining what benefits his wife would be entitled 
as a result of their marriage. We also find the circumstance in 
this case sufficiently different from that in the referenced BCMR 
case and find no basis to recommend granting relief on that 
basis. In the referenced case the Board noted that since that 
applicant had previously elected coverage under SBP, it was 
reasonable to assume he would have taken steps to provide SBP for 
his spouse absent the circumstances that precluded him from doing 
so. The significant health problems in that case are also more 
significant than the circumstances cited by the applicant. At 
any rate, the fact that the Board elected to resolve doubt in 
favor of that applicant does not prevent it from determining 
there is not a sufficient basis here to accord the applicant the 
benefit of doubt. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested 
relief 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 issue 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 a 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-2010-02536 in Executive Session on 5 Oct 10, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Jul 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIAR, dated 2 Aug 10. 

 Exhibit C. Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Aug 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, Counsel, dated 13 Sep 10, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair