Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00463
Original file (BC-2011-00463.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00463 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her late husband’s record be corrected to reflect that he elected 
Survivor Benefit (SBP) Plan spouse coverage at the time of his 
retirement. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

She believed that receiving SBP at the time of her husband’s 
death was automatic. She never received any counseling, 
documents, or information about SBP. 

 

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of her 
marriage certificate and the member’s death certificate. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s military 
service records, are contained in the evaluation provided by the 
Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSIAR recommends denial. DPSIAR states there is no error 
or injustice in this case. The applicant and the decedent were 
married on 20 April 1968; however, the decedent declined SBP 
coverage prior to his 1 April 1992 retirement, and the applicant 
concurred with his election. A copy of the SBP election, located 
in the member’s finance record, reflects the applicant signed a 
statement concurring in the member’s election, as required by 
Public Law 99-145. The member could have elected SBP coverage on 
the applicant’s behalf during open enrollment periods authorized 
by Public Laws 105-261 and 108-375, but he failed to do so. The 
member died on 5 January 2011. 

 

DPSIAR indicates that the applicant’s claim that she never 
received any counseling, documents, or information about the SBP, 


is without merit. The Air Force Form 1267, SBP Notification and 
Concurrence, Section II, states a letter was sent informing her 
of SBP options on 29 January 1992. The applicant’s signature in 
Section II of the Air Force Form 1267, dated 30 March 1992, 
confirms she concurred with the member’s decision to decline SBP 
coverage. It would be inequitable to other widows, who also 
concurred with their sponsor’s election to decline coverage, to 
grant this widow another opportunity to obtain SBP coverage after 
the death of the member. 

 

The complete DPSIAR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit 
B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

If by signing the Air Force Form 1267 meant that she had been 
counseled or briefed on the SBP and notified what she was 
signing, that is incorrect. She did not receive any briefing or 
counseling of the SBP. Also, if signing the Air Force Form 1267 
meant she was concurring with the election of her husband’s 
decision to decline the SBP annuity, she was not made aware of 
this, and she was not aware that by signing the form it meant she 
would not receive the SBP annuity. In addition, the advisory 
opinion states the Air Force Form 1267 indicates she received a 
spouse notification letter; however, this is not correct as she 
never received it. As far as the open enrollment period 
announcements being sent by letter and being advertised, she 
never received those either. Even if they had been received, 
they would not have been acted upon as her knowledge has always 
been that she was covered/enrolled in the SBP and that she would 
receive the SBP annuity upon her husband’s death. 

 

The applicant complete rebuttal 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 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 Docket Number BC-
2011-00463 in Executive Session on 20 September 2011, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-00463: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Feb 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIAR, dated 7 Mar 11. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Apr 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 4 May 11. 

 

 

 

 

Panel Chair 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-02486

    Original file (BC-2012-02486.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    If the member fails to elect SBP coverage for an eligible beneficiary within the time prescribed by law, coverage may be provided only in the event Congress authorizes open enrollment. He failed to submit a valid request to elect SBP coverage on the applicant’s behalf within the time prescribed by law. It is the member’s right and responsibility to elect SBP coverage for a spouse acquired after retirement.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02755

    Original file (BC-2011-02755.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The U.S. Court of Claims has consistently ruled that widows of members retiring after SBP's implementation, who were not given notice of the sponsor's election, are entitled to full SBP coverage-Barber v. U.S., 676 F.2d 651 (CI. In this case, although this applicant claims she does not remember seeing the notification letter when the decedent declined SBP coverage prior to his retirement, clearly the spouse notification letter was sent to her by the Air Force as required by law. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 03362

    Original file (BC 2007 03362.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2013 | BC 2012 01987

    Original file (BC 2012 01987.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    She filed for the SBP annuity and was informed that her husband never elected SBP spouse coverage. DPSIAR notes that in all of these cases, the facts were essentially the same as in this case except the applicant failed to request correction within six years of the member’s death and her notarized statement claiming the member had told her “over and over again” that she was to receive his pension does not meet the standard criteria for a Barber affidavit, i.e., (1) she was not notified at...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01351

    Original file (BC-2012-01351.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DPSIDAR states that there is no evidence of Air Force error in this case; however, in the absence of a competing claimant and to prevent a possible injustice, they recommend the decedent’s record be corrected to reflect he elected former spouse coverage based on full retired pay, naming APPLICANT as the former spouse beneficiary, effective 11 January 2005. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01037

    Original file (BC-2002-01037.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR states Public Law (PL) 99-145, established on 8 November 1985, required as of 1 March 1986 spousal concurrence of the SBP election, if the election was providing less than maximum spouse coverage. According to the Defense Finance and Service - Cleveland Center (DAFS- CL) the servicemember elected full spouse and child coverage under SBP, but later submitted a corrected election to decline SBP...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04376

    Original file (BC-2011-04376.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Upon his retirement from the Air Force, the decedent was divorced from his previous spouse and elected child only SBP coverage. Title 10, USC Section 1448(a)(3)(A), permits a member, who is not married at the time of retirement and who later marries, to provide SBP spouse coverage within the first year of marriage. ________________________________________________________________ The following members...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2011-02061

    Original file (BC-2011-02061.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    _______________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to the information provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, the applicant and the decedent were married on 29 May 1961. After the death of the retired member, the widow provided a sworn statement that she did not receive notification that her husband had declined SBP coverage. To date, a response has not been received (Exhibit C).

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00672

    Original file (BC-2013-00672.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    They note that the record should be corrected to show that, effective 30 Nov 76, the decedent elected spouse only SBP coverage based on full retired pay. In this case, as in all Barber cases, the facts are essentially the same: there is no record the required notice was sent to the applicant and the applicant has provided a sworn statement that she did not receive notification that the decedent had declined SBP coverage. ________________________________________________________________ THE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00189

    Original file (BC-2010-00189.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The DPSIAR complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 9 Apr 10 for review and comment within 30 days. 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...