RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03530
COUNSEL: NONE
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).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He did not elect SBP coverage for his spouse because they were advised
by their financial advisor that the SBP would be reduced by the Social
Security benefit. They were not aware of the open enrollment period
after the Social Security Offset (SSO) was eliminated.
Applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Prior to his 1 Jul 01 retirement, the applicant with his spouse’s
concurrence elected child only SBP coverage based on full retired pay.
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. PL
108-375 also established the phased-in elimination of the SSO.
Service members were advised of their eligibility to make an election
by direct mail and the Afterburner, News for USAF Retired Personnel.
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 C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIAR recommends denial. AFPC/DPSIAR states it is the service
member’s responsibility to take timely and appropriate action to
ensure his spouse is properly designated for military benefits. The
applicant made a valid election for child only coverage with his
spouse’s concurrence. The DD Form 2656, Data for Pay of Retired
Personnel, indicates her acknowledgement of the decision to elect
child only SBP coverage and that the election would be irrevocable.
The applicant had two opportunities to elect SBP coverage for his
spouse and failed to do so. 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 retirees
similarly situated and is not justified.
The complete AFPC/DPSIAR evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The evaluation states he and his spouse had two opportunities to elect
coverage, technically this is not true. They did decline coverage,
but recently became aware of the open enrollment period in 2005-2006.
He cannot dispute whether or not he was notified of the open season by
direct mail or the Afterburner, because this was during a time when he
was very busy trying to help a friend start a new business and was not
scrutinizing the retiree mailings or anything not relating to the
business at that time. They are not offering this as an excuse or
justification, but simply as an explanation, that he and his wife were
not aware of the significant change to SBP. They were also unaware of
the lump-sum requirement in the 2005-2006 open enrollment period but
agree that it was perfectly appropriate and remains so even in this
appeal.
The applicant’s complete response 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 an error or an injustice. We took
notice of the applicant's complete submission, to include his
rebuttal response, in judging the merits of the case; however, the
Board majority agrees with the opinion and the recommendation of the
Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as
the basis for their conclusion the applicant has failed to sustain
his burden of proof of the existence of an error or injustice. The
applicant was counseled on the provisions of SBP at the time of his
retirement and elected child only coverage with his spouse’s
concurrence. It also appears he was advised of his opportunity to
elect coverage through an open enrollment season due to the
elimination of the SSO, and took no action. In view of this, the
Board’s majority finds no basis to recommend granting the relief
sought 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-2010-03530 in Executive Session on 8 Feb 11, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
By majority vote, the Board recommended denying the application;
however, Ms. Mulligan voted to grant the relief requested but did not
desire to submit a Minority Report. The following
documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-03530
was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Aug 10.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIAR, dated 21 Oct 10.
Exhibit C. Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Nov 10.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 8 Dec 10.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03700
DPPRT states it would be inequitable to those members, who chose to elect spouse coverage during the 2004-2005 open enrollment period, paid the buy-in retroactive amount and received reduced retired pay to provide an additional opportunity for this member to change his SBP election. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00743
Had the applicant submitted a valid election within the time prescribed for making an SBP election after retirement, monthly premiums would be approximately $81. 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. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03820
On 11 March 1999, the applicant submitted a request to terminate his SBP coverage under the provisions of PL 105-85. PL 108-375 authorized an open enrollment period from 1 October 2005 through 30 September 2006 to enroll in SBP, but the law stipulates that servicemembers who terminated coverage under the provisions of PL 105-85 can not renter the program. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00439
There is no evidence he submitted an election during the 92-93, 99-00, or the 05-06 open enrollment periods. As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit D). 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 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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 04082
He was not advised prior to or during his out processing that he could elect spouse SBP coverage for his wife. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFFF recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. We took notice of the applicants complete submission in judging the merits of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-04619
When he requested termination of his SBP coverage, there was no termination of premiums based on age or any provision to stop premiums after a certain number had been paid. On 16 April 1999, the applicant submitted a valid request to the Defense Finance Accounting Service-Cleveland (DFAS-CL) under Public Law 105-85 to terminate his SBP coverage. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 08345 12
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 §, COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 7 004 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 pyc Docket No. 8345-12 27 Aug 13 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy x Ref: {a) Title 10 U.9.c. The Board, consisting of Mr. Pfeiffer, Mr. Zsaiman, and Mr. George, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 26 Bugust 2013 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00728
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He requested to have SBP started when he retired in 1964; however, his record reflects he has only paid premiums for 337 months. DPSIAR indicates that while the applicant believes he enrolled in the SBP when he retired, he could not have elected SBP in 1964, more than eight years before the Plan was created. Based on his enrollment in the SBP, he has not paid the 360 monthly premiums in order be...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 03821
DFAS records reflect the decedent elected maximum child only SBP coverage prior to his 1 Sep 89 retirement. Records further contain an annotation that the applicant concurred with the members SBP election prior to his retirement. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00900
As he did not elect coverage for his wife prior to his retirement, he may not establish SBP coverage for his spouse except during congressionally approved open enrollment periods. DPSIAR notes there is no error or injustice in this case and that the applicant had three opportunities to elect SBP coverage for his wife. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant contends the reason he did not take advantage of...