RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-00429 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
       
 
HEARING DESIRED:  NOT INDICATED 
       
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
She  be  reimbursed  for  all  premiums  she  has  paid  under  the 
Survivor  Benefit  Plan  (SBP)  during  the  period  September  1994 
through May 2011. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
She never was appropriately counseled regarding the tenets of the 
SBP  program  and  should  be  refunded  all  premiums  she  has  paid.  
She  was  divorced  in  1995  and  did  not  elect  to  restart  the  SBP 
coverage when she remarried in 2004.  She was never informed that 
she would be charged SBP premiums from her retired pay or that 
she could not disenroll from the program.  She was not aware that 
she was enrolling in SBP when she elected her beneficiaries and 
that once enrolled, she could not cancel or make changes. 
 
In  support  of  her  request,  the  applicant  provides  an  expanded 
statement,  a  copy  of  her  divorce  decree,  DFAS-CL  7220,  Retiree 
Account  Statements,  DD  Form  2894,  Designation  of  Beneficiary 
Information. 
 
The  applicant's  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The applicant is a retired Air Force master sergeant (MSgt). 
 
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. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSIAR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of 
an  error  or  injustice.    The  Defense  Enrollment  Eligibility 
Reporting  System  (DEERS)  reflects  she  and      were  married  on 
17 April  1999,  and  divorced  on  .    DPSIAR  requested  DFAS-CL  to 
provide a copy of the applicant’s DD Form 2656, however, DPSIAR 
has not received the document; therefore, they cannot confirm if 
the applicant submitted the form or the form was invalid.  In any 
case,  DFAS-CL  established  spouse  coverage  based  on  full  retired 
pay to comply with Public Law (PL) 99-145, which requires DFAS-CL 
to  establish  such  coverage  and  begin  deducting  spouse  premiums 
from  the  service  member's  retired  pay  when  the  service  member 
fails  to  complete  a  valid  election  for  less  than  the  maximum 
level  of  spouse  coverage.    DEERS  further  reflects  the  applicant 
and Robert married on 17 November 2004 and SBP premiums commenced 
on the first anniversary of their marriage in accordance with PL 
99-145.  While PL 99-145 permits members such as the applicant to 
not re-instate spouse coverage when they remarry, to effect such 
an election, the member must submit a request to not resume SBP 
spouse  coverage  to  DFAS-CL  before  the  first  anniversary  of  the 
new marriage.  Absent such an election, the law requires coverage 
to be established on the first anniversary of the marriage.  The 
parties  divorced  on      the  applicant's  SBP  spouse  coverage  was 
suspended, effective that date.   
 
Title  10  USC  Section  1452(f)  holds  that  a  participant  is  not 
entitled  to  any  refund  of  SBP  premiums  that  were  correctly 
deducted.  Therefore, the applicant's request for a refund of all 
premiums is without merit. 
 
The complete AFPC/DPSIAR evaluation is at Exhibit B. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
She was not provided or informed on the law and requirements of 
SBP.    She  was  not  aware  the  SBP  premiums  would  resume  on  the 
first anniversary of the marriage or that her adult children were 
not eligible to receive the annuity although they were named the 
beneficiaries for retired pay. Had she been informed or provided 
the information on the requirements of the law pertaining to SBP 
she  would  have  been  able  to  make  a  timely  decision  to  have  the 
SBP premiums terminated. 
 
The  applicant’s  complete  response,  with  an  attachment,  is  at 
Exhibit D. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 

 

2 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
 
1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 
 
2.  The application was timely filed. 
 
3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  an  error  or  an  injustice.    The 
applicant  contends  that  she  was  not  appropriately  counseled  on 
requirements of the Survivor Benefit Plan.  We took notice of her 
complete submission, to include the rebuttal response, 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 
decision  the  applicant  is  not  the  victim  of  an  error  or 
injustice.    Other  than  her  own  assertions,  the  applicant  has 
provided  no  evidence  whatsoever  that  she  was  miscounseled 
regarding her rights and obligations under the Survivor Benefit 
Plan  (SBP).    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  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-2012-00429  in  Executive  Session  on  19  December  2012, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
 

   Panel Chair 
   Member 
   Member 

 

3 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 January 2012, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIAR, dated 8 May 2012. 
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 May 2012. 
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 30 August 2012, w/atch. 

The  following  documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-01848 was considered: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  
Panel Chair  

 
 

   
   

 
 

 

4