RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00432 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His record be corrected to reflect he elected child only 
coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He submitted a request for child only coverage under the SBP. 
His wife concurred with the election; however, his request was 
declined because his wife’s birth date was erroneously entered 
for her signature date. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who 
retired on 1 Apr 11. 

 

The remaining relevant facts are contained in the letters 
prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility 
(OPR) which are at Exhibits B and C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSIAR believes there are negative implications in either 
granting or denying relief. 

 

The applicant elected child only SBP coverage based on full 
retired pay prior to his 1 Apr 11 retirement. His wife 
concurred in the election; however, she erroneously entered 
her date of birth when she dated her signature, therefore, 
invalidating the election. Consequently, DFAS-CL established 
spouse and child coverage based on full retired pay to comply 
with the law. Upon receipt of the applicant's request, his 
spouse was contacted and provided a supplementary concurrence 


statement containing detailed information about child only 
coverage, which she signed in the presence of a notary public on 
13 Jan 12. However, on 29 Mar 12, the member contacted the SBP 
counselor at Kirtland stating he was in the process of getting 
a divorce. He requested a copy of his spouse’s supplementary 
concurrence statement to prove to the court that she should not 
become entitled to SBP coverage as his former spouse. The 
applicant was provided a copy of his spouse’s 13 Jan 12 
concurrence statement; however, a copy of the pending divorce 
decree or marital settlement agreement (MSA) is not yet 
available as the parties divorce is yet to be finalized. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSIAR evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

SAF/MRB Legal Advisor recommends denial of the applicant’s 
request as this case presents the Board with competing interests 
between the former spouse and the applicant. Given the 
competing interests and the absence of a valid, timely election, 
the Board should follow the long standing SAF/GCM guidance not 
to correct an existing record when "the result would be 
unfavorable to another person eligible to seek relief from the 
BCMR.” 

 

The applicant’s 28 Jun 12 MSA states the "Husband shall elect 
Wife as Former Spouse (sole) Beneficiary of Husband's SBP at the 
maximum amount." The MSA further states, "Wife shall remain 
Husband's irrevocable former spouse beneficiary unless she 
chooses otherwise with options that may apply to her during an 
SBP Open Season." Finally, the MSA provides, "[n]o later than 
fifteen (15) calendar days from the signing of the Final Decree, 
Husband shall complete, sign, and return to the Service 
Secretary all documents, papers, and forms (DD Form 2656 or 
other form(s) as designated by DFAS) necessary to provide SBP 
former spouse coverage to Wife." The applicant's signature 
appears on the MSA along with that of the former spouse. 

 

In cases where the service member's original election of child-
only coverage is invalid, as is the case here, coverage for 
spouse and child is automatically established. Whatever 
probative value may accrue to the wife's affirmation of her 
original, erroneous concurrence is more than cancelled by the 
changed circumstances of the case, which introduces a competing 
interest in the SBP benefits. Therefore, there is no reason to 
depart from the rule established by the Air Force instruction. 

 

The complete SAF/MRB Legal Advisor evaluation, with attachments, 
is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force and SAF/MRB Legal Advisor evaluations 
were forwarded to the applicant on 31 Jan 13 for review and 
comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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 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 however, we accept the determination of 
the SAF/MRB Legal Advisor and adopt his rationale as the basis 
for our conclusion the applicant has not demonstrated that 
extraordinary circumstances exist that are required for this 
Board to grant relief in cases of competing interests. This 
Board has long been advised by legal counsel that it should not, 
except in the most extraordinary of circumstances, correct an 
existing record when the result would be unfavorable to another 
person eligible to seek relief from the BCMR. In this respect, 
we note that granting the applicant’s request would deprive his 
former spouse of a benefit to which she is legally entitled. 
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-2012-00432 in Executive Session on 13 Mar 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Feb 12, w/atchs. 

Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIAR, dated 5 Apr 12 

Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRB Legal Advisor, dated 22 Jan 13, 

 w/atchs. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 31 Jan 13. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair