RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03181
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
She receives her late husbands Death Gratuity (DG) due at the
time of his death.
________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was not aware of the DG at the time of her husbands death.
After his death, she was not assigned a casualty assistance
counselor, was pregnant with her first child, and was relocating
to Florida. When her child was 3 months old, she returned to
Massachusetts to reestablish residency and was never made aware
of the benefits, except for Dependents Indemnity Compensation
(DIC) and Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department
of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPA) [sic].
She has gone through a lot of research and effort to try to find
out how to receive the benefit, e.g. request through Air Force
officials, the National Personnel Record Center (NPRC), the
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), and a letter to the Spouse
of the President, Mrs. Obama.
In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a personal
statement; a newspaper clipping; copies of her letters to the
DVA, the First Lady, and letters from the DVA, NPRC, state
officials; the decedents death certificate, and extracts of the
former members DVA and military personnel record.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The decedents master personnel records were destroyed by fire
at the National Personnel Record Center (NPRC), in St. Louis, in
1973. Therefore, the facts pertaining to this application are
taken from the documents provided by the applicant and those
facts contained in the evaluation prepared by the appropriate
office of the Air Force. The decedent died on June 17, 1960.
________________________________________________________________
THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPWC recommends contacting the Defense Accounting and
Finance Service, Indiana (DFAS-IN) on whether the DG was paid.
Based on the evidence provided by the applicant, she was
designated as beneficiary for the DG pay and unpaid pay and
allowances. At the time of the decedents death, the DG was
equal to six times the members base pay. The available
documents reflect the decedents base pay was $222.30;
therefore, the DG would have been approximately $1333.80.
The complete AFPC/DPWC evaluation, with attachments, is at
Exhibit C.
DFAS-IN recommends denial. Based on Title 31, United States
Code (USC), 3702, Section 1, the Barring Act of 1940, states
that a claim is barred unless it is received within six years
after the date the claim first accrued. The date of receipt is
the controlling factory in considering the applicants claim.
Since the claim for DG accrued at the time of her husbands
death and was received more than six years after the date it
accrued, it is barred for consideration by the provisions of the
Barring Act. They found no record of a prior claim from the
applicant.
The complete DFAS-IN evaluation, with attachment, is at
Exhibit D.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 22 Oct 10 for review and comment within 30 days.
As of this date, no response has been received by this office
(Exhibit E).
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by
existing law or regulations.
2. The application was not filed within three years after the
alleged error or injustice was discovered, or could have been
discovered, as required by Section 1552, Title 10, United States
Code (10 USC 1552), and Air Force Instruction 36-2603. Although
the applicant asserts a date of discovery which would, if
applicable, make the application timely, the essential facts
which give rise to the application were known to the applicant
long before the asserted date of discovery. Knowledge of those
facts constituted the date of discovery and the beginning of the
three-year period for filing. Thus, the application is
untimely.
3. Paragraph b of 10 USC 1552 permits us, in our discretion, to
excuse untimely filing in the interest of justice. We have
carefully reviewed applicant's submission and the entire record,
and we do not find a sufficient basis to excuse the untimely
filing of this application. The applicant has not shown a
plausible reason for delay in filing, and we are not persuaded
that the record raises issues of error or injustice that require
resolution on its merits. Regrettably, we conclude that it
would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the untimely
filing of the application.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of material 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-2010-03181 in Executive Session on 26 May 2011, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Aug 10.
Exhibit B. Available Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPWC, dated 13 Oct 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, DFAS, undated, w/atchs.
Exhibit E. SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Oct 10.
Panel Chair
The decedent and the applicant married on 4 Jun 79 and coverage and premiums were reinstated on the first anniversary of their marriage. As a result of the CG’s decision, the AFBCMR advised the applicant by letter dated 17 Sep 98 that, since the Board lacked the authority to approve claims that were filed more than six years after the death of the service member, her case was being returned and administratively closed (Exhibit D). Notwithstanding her on again/off again marriage to the...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-02727
Her deceased husband’s records be corrected to reflect that she made timely notification of his death so she may receive benefits under the Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP). The applicant states she was misinformed by the member’s ANG unit to wait until his 60th birthday (16 Jun 10) to file a claim for benefits. Exhibit B. Decedent’s Master Personnel Records.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00851
According to the DFAS letter, dated 4 Aug 14, the only challenge to her receipt of the earned survivor benefits within the RCSBP, is the timing of submission requesting these benefits The applicants complete submission is at Exhibit E. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. We note that DFAS states that they received confirmation that the former member elected RCSBP for his spouse on 26 November 2002 and at that time an annuity claim package should have been sent to the applicant. THE BOARD...
As a result of the CG’s decision, the AFBCMR advised the applicant by letter dated 23 Jan 98 that, since the Board lacked the authority to approve claims that were filed more than six years after the death of the service member, her case was being returned and administratively closed (Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Prior to the Pride v. US ruling, the Chief, Retiree Services Branch, AFPC/DPPTR, had provided the following...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02213
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02213 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. In contrast, interned is defined as the casualty is definitely known to have been taken into custody of a non belligerent foreign power as a result of and for reasons arising out of any armed conflict in which the Armed Forces of the United...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03482
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) stated that in order to receive the SBP benefit they only needed to be married for 10 years, the former spouse had to be deceased and she had to pay an $18,496.42 debt. The applicant was advised that upon providing these documents, her SBP account would be established and all retroactive pay would be issued. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or...
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...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant indicates that the length of time since the decedent retired and the application was filed have likely contributed to the incomplete records available for review in this case. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded to the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 03362
The member and the applicant were allegedly married in Tijuana, Mexico on 8 Jun 82, and he elected spouse only coverage based on a reduced level of retired pay during the open enrollment authorized by Public Law (PL) 97-35 (1 Oct 81 30 Sep 82). The Air Force office of primary responsibility has recommended that we consider voiding the decedent's 23 Sep 82 election for SBP coverage for the applicant, suggesting that the "erroneous deductions of SBP premiums for spouse coverage be refunded...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2005-02786
DPPRT states there is no evidence the member submitted a request within the required time limit to voluntarily elect former spouse coverage on the applicant’s behalf. Records show that the member did not remarry and premiums continued to be deducted from his retired pay until his 2 Jul 96 death. 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...