Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02535
Original file (BC-2011-02535.txt) Auto-classification: Approved
 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02535 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His record be changed to show he elected spouse coverage under 
the Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He went to the 157th Military Personnel Flight (MPF) to have his 
marriage updated in the Defense Eligibility Enrollment Reporting 
System (DEERS). He also asked if there was anything else he 
needed to take care of – SBP was never mentioned. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of his 
marriage record. 

 

The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant was notified of his eligibility to participate in 
the RCSBP on 12 December 2003 via letter. The election package 
was sent to the applicant’s address. He made no election during 
that time and was automatically enrolled in Option A (Decline to 
make an election until age 60). 

 

The applicant married on 17 February 2009. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

ARPC/DPTT recommends denial. DPTT states unfortunately the 
MILPDS and DEERS do not interchange or merge information. In 
addition, the RCSBP can only be updated by ARPC and DPTT and they 
have no record of contact. The RCSBP package that was sent to 
the applicant in 2003 clearly explained that if the member had 
any questions, life changing events, or concerns to call this 


headquarters. Based on the facts provided, the applicant did not 
request to change his RCSBP coverage within one year of his 
marriage as required by law Title 10, U.S.C., Section 1448. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 19 August 2011, 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 timely filed. 

 

3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an injustice. Having carefully 
reviewed this application, we believe that relief is warranted. 
We note the applicant took steps to have his marriage updated in 
the DEERS and through no fault of his own, he was not fully aware 
of the steps necessary to implement SBP coverage for his spouse. 
In addition, the Board finds the evidence sufficient to give him 
the benefit of doubt in this matter as it does not appear 
reasonable that he would have knowingly elected not to elect this 
important benefit. As such, we believe that any doubt in this 
matter should be resolved in his favor. Therefore, we recommend 
that his records be corrected as indicated below. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 17 February 
2009, he elected spouse coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan 
(SBP) based on full retired pay, naming XXXX as the spouse 
beneficiary. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 


 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-02535 in Executive Session on 26 April 2012, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The 
following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number 
BC-2011-02535 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 June 2011, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPTT, dated 8 August 2011, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 August 2012. 

 

 

 

 

 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00051

    Original file (BC 2014 00051.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    STATEMENT OF FACTS: The RCSBP Information Package that was mailed to the applicant at his initial election point stated: “If you do not have a spouse or dependent children at the time you are entitled to make an RCSBP election, but later acquire a spouse or children, you may elect RCSBP coverage for that spouse or children within one year of acquisition.” AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPTT recommends denial based on the applicant not making the update within one year of his marriage as...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02287

    Original file (BC-2011-02287.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states that on 25 Mar 04, she and the decedent had gone to a Air National Guard post to update their marital status in the Defense Eligibility Enrollment Reporting System (DEERS). We further note the applicant signed for the package sent to the now deceased former member notifying him of his eligibility to participate in the RCSBP. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02001

    Original file (BC-2012-02001.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit B. Further, although the law currently provides automatic coverage for a spouse if the member fails to provide coverage or the spouse does not agree with the decision, no such provisions existed at the time of the member’s eligibility to enroll in the program. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00212

    Original file (BC 2013 00212.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPTT recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. IAW U.S.C., Title 10, Subsection 1448(a)(5)(B) Manner and Time of Election, ”Such an election must be written, signed by the person...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00212

    Original file (BC-2013-00212.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPTT recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. IAW U.S.C., Title 10, Subsection 1448(a)(5)(B) Manner and Time of Election, ”Such an election must be written, signed by the person...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05023

    Original file (BC 2013 05023.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPTT states they should have given the former service member an opportunity to correct the ARPC Form 123 he submitted at the time he made his election. Title 10 Subsection 1448 (a) (3) (A) and Section IX on the form, “A married person who is eligible to provide standard annuity may not without the concurrence of the person’s spouse elect not to participate in the Plan.” ARPC failed to notify the service member to make corrections and updated his election in error. Exhibit F. Affidavits,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05607

    Original file (BC 2012 05607.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was not married when he made his SBP election in February 2009. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit B. The applicant married on 24 August 2009 and there is no evidence he submitted a request within one year following his marriage.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02877

    Original file (BC-2010-02877.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 17 Sep 10 for review and comment within 30 days. Therefore, because the former member did not take action to ensure the Air Force personnel system was updated, the Legal Advisor does not find it appropriate to charge the former member’s negligence against the applicant by denying coverage which Congress intended....

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02547

    Original file (BC-2011-02547.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In view of the fact that the deceased former service member was eligible for retired pay at age 60, the applicant is eligible for an ID card, Base Exchange and Commissary privileges. 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 the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-05255

    Original file (BC-2011-05255.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 9 Sep 2000, the applicant married; however, he did not request to update his RCSBP election within one year of his marriage. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C). 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...