Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 03446 2
Original file (BC 2012 03446 2.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:		DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-03646

	(DECEASED		COUNSEL:  
	                    SERVICE MBR)
			HEARING DESIRED:  NO 
	 (APPLICANT)

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her late former spouse’s records be corrected to reflect he made 
a timely election for former spouse coverage under the Survivor 
Benefit Plan (SBP).

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

A similar appeal was considered and denied by the Board on 
17 June 2013.  For an accounting of the facts and circumstances 
surrounding the applicant’s request, and the rationale for the 
earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings, 
with Exhibits, at Exhibit D.

On 15 August 2013, the applicant’s counsel requests 
reconsideration for former spouse coverage under the SBP.  
Counsel cites he submitted a request on 10 February 1988 for the 
applicant to receive benefits as outlined in her Separation 
Agreement.  Counsel states in March 1988, they were notified by 
the Judge Advocates office that the applicant was entitled and 
would receive payments under the Uniformed Service Former 
Spouses’ Protection Act; and in fact she did receive payments 
until the former service member’s death in 2012.  To state the 
applicant is not eligible for former spouse coverage because she 
failed to properly file for coverage is an injustice. 

The Counsel’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit E.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

We have thoroughly reviewed the evidence of record and 
considered the weight and relevance of the additional 
documentation provided by the applicant, and whether or not it 
was discoverable at the time of any previous application.  
However, since no new and relevant evidence has been provided, 
we find the request does not meet the criteria for 
reconsideration.  As the applicant has been previously advised, 
reconsideration is provided only where newly discovered relevant 
evidence is presented which was not available when the 
application was submitted.  Further, the reiteration of facts we 
have previously addressed, uncorroborated personal observations, 
or additional arguments on the evidence of record are not 
adequate grounds for reopening a case.  Therefore, in view of 
the above and in the absence of new and relevant evidence, we 
find no basis to reconsider the applicant’s request.

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-03646 in Executive Session on 25 Mar 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit D.  Record of Proceedings, dated 8 Jul 13,
	            w/Exhibits.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Counsel, dated 15 Aug 13, w/atchs.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair




Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03646

    Original file (BC-2012-03646.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the latter case, the former spouse must provide legal documentation the service member agreed, or the court ordered the service member, to establish former spouse coverage. There is no record the applicant submitted a valid election to establish former spouse SBP coverage within the first year following their divorce. She has not provided evidence showing the former service member made an election for former spouse coverage within one year of their divorce as required by law.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04722

    Original file (BC-2012-04722.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, we also note that federal law makes the election unavailable when the deemed election is not timely effected, and no evidence has been presented which shows a deemed election was made within the one-year time period mandated by the law. We are aware that in extraordinary circumstances, it is within the authority of the Board to correct a record if it finds it necessary to prevent an error or injustice. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR BC-2012- 04722 in...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2011-04704

    Original file (BC-2011-04704.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He elected spouse and child SBP coverage based on a reduced level of retired pay, and his wife concurred in his election. _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 19 Jan 2012, the applicant requested additional time to provide supplementary evidence in support of her request and her case was administratively closed. In the absence of evidence that there was a “deemed election” by the applicant within one year 3 after the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-01572

    Original file (BC-2012-01572.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her late husband paid SBP premiums for his former spouse’s SBP coverage from January 1996 to June 2004, even though the former spouse remarried in September 2003 before her 55th birthday. The complete DFAS evaluation is at Exhibit B. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRB Legal Advisor, dated 15 Nov 12, Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 Dec 12, w/atch.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04626

    Original file (BC-2012-04626.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFFF recommends approval, stating, in part, there is no evidence of Air Force error in this case and absent a competing claimant, DPFFF recommends the decedent's record be corrected to reflect on 1 Feb 94, he elected to change SBP spouse to former spouse coverage based on full retired pay, naming the applicant as the former spouse beneficiary. Considering the applicant failed to execute a deemed...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04556

    Original file (BC-2011-04556.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 23 May 2012, the applicant and the former member were provided advisories (Exhibit D) prepared by SAF/GCM on similar cases considered by the Board. ___________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The former member wrote on behalf of his former spouse stating he elected the applicant as the SBP beneficiary upon his retirement and was unaware another declaration was to be made within a year of the divorce. While we note the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02998

    Original file (BC 2013 02998.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, there is no evidence either party submitted a valid former spouse election during the required time following their divorce. Neither the applicant nor the former spouse submitted a valid election within the one-year period required by law to establish former spouse coverage. Exhibit D. Letter, Member, dated 3 Sep 2013, w/atch.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 03579 3

    Original file (BC 2007 03579 3.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    SECOND ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03579 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her deceased spouse’s record be changed to show he elected former spouse only coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). The Addendum to the Record of Proceedings (ROP) with attachments is at Exhibit G. In a letter dated...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04466

    Original file (BC-2011-04466.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: She and her deceased former spouse were married on 10 Nov 1961 and divorced on 13 Dec 2002. While we do not take issue with the applicant’s assertion that her divorce decree ordered her deceased former husband to continue coverage for her under the SBP, he failed to convert the coverage to former spouse coverage within one year of their divorce as required by law. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03360

    Original file (BC-2012-03360.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...