RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03045
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His record be changed to show he elected spouse coverage under
the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was not advised nor did he understand the benefit. His spouse
was not provided the opportunity to have the benefit explained to
her and have the option to concur or non-concur.
In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal
statement.
The applicants complete submission, with attachment, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant elected child only SBP coverage based on full
retired pay prior to his 1 January 1993 retirement.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIAR recommends denial. DPSIAR states finance records
contain an annotation that his spouse concurred in the
applicants SBP election prior to his retirement.
The applicants claim that he was not advised on what the SBP
would provide for his spouse is without merit. It is the
applicants responsibility to take timely and appropriate action
to ensure his spouse is properly designated for military
benefits. He made a valid election for child only coverage with
his wifes concurrence. There is no reason to believe that he
did not receive a copy of the Afterburner, because they were
mailed to the address where he currently resides. Furthermore, a
copy of the SBP RIP located in the applicants records shows he
signed the certification sheet on 24 November 1992, indicating he
was properly briefed on and understood the options and effects of
the Plan. Media storage and retrival incompatibilities between
the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) and the Air
Force Accounting and Finance Center (AFAFC) preclude acquiring a
copy of his wifes concurrence statement; nevertheless, the
record reflects she concurred in his decision. The applicant had
three opportunities to elect SBP coverage for his wife, but
failed to do so. SBP is similar to commercial life insurance in
that an individual must elect to participate during the
opportunities provided by the law and pay the associated premiums
in order to have coverage. Approval of this request would
provide the applicant an additional opportunity to elect SBP
coverage not afforded other retirees similarly situated and is
not justified. There is no evidence of error or injustice in
this case.
The DPSIAR complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 12 November 2010, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days
(Exhibit C). 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 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. The
applicants 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 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.
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 the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2010-03045 in Executive Session on 23 February 2011,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2010-03045 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 August 2010, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIAR, dated 6 October 2010, w/atch.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 November 2010.
Panel Chair
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-2010-02898
At the time the applicants last child lost eligibility, SBP premiums were $17; if he had spouse coverage, the monthly costs would have been approximately $180. 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. ...
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 | 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 | 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 | CY2010 | BC-2010-03441
The remaining relevant facts extracted from the applicant service records, are contained in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIAR recommends denial. DPSIAR states that prior to his retirement, the applicant completed an election to decline SBP coverage; however, his unit failed to witness his signature, invalidating the election. We took...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01342
The applicant had three opportunities to elect SBP coverage for his wife, but failed to do so. The complete DPSIAR evaluation is at Exhibit B. 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 the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03360
Subsequently, the applicant and his wife were provided information and briefed on the options and effects of the SBP by their office. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 30 August 2012, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-03530
Public Law (PL) 108-375 authorized an open enrollment period beginning 1 Oct 05 through 30 Sep 06, that allowed service members, who had declined or had less than maximum level of SBP coverage, an opportunity to elect to participate or increase their coverage. The applicant had two opportunities to elect SBP coverage for his spouse and failed to do so. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00146
A retiring member may change his SBP election up to the date of separation. The member elected spouse and child SBP coverage based on full retired pay on 16 Jun 2011. However, on 30 Nov 2011, one day prior to his 1 Dec 2011 retirement, he changed his election to decline SBP coverage and his wife concurred with his election.