AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01101 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
                 
                 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
Her  former  spouse’s  records  be  corrected  to  establish  former 
spouse coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
She called the military retirement pay office to request her Form 
1099 for her taxes, and was informed that she is listed as the 
“spouse”  not  “former  spouse,”  and  this  needs  to  be  changed  for 
her SBP benefits. 
 
In support of her request, the applicant provides a copy of her 
divorce decree. 
 
The  applicant's  complete  submission,  with  attachment,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
Defense  Enrollment  Eligibility  Reporting  System  (DEERS)  records 
show  the  applicant  and  her  former  spouse  were  married  on  16  Jun 
71,  and  he  elected  spouse  and  child  SBP  coverage  based  on  a 
reduced  level  of  retired  pay  prior  to  his  1  Sep  93  retirement.  
The parties divorced on 8 Sep 95, and the divorce decree awarded 
the applicant 50 percent of the member’s military retirement, but 
did not specifically refer to the SBP.  There is no evidence the 
member submitted a valid election to voluntarily change spouse to 
former  spouse  coverage  within  the  first  year  following  their 
divorce  as  the  law  requires.    The  DEERS  records  show  the  member 
married  his  current  spouse  on  22  Nov  95,  but  he  did  not  notify 
the  Defense  Finance  and  Accounting  Service  –  Cleveland  Center 
(DFAS-CL)  of  the  change  in  his  marital  status  or  request  spouse 
coverage be established on her behalf.  Nevertheless, his current 
spouse  became  the  eligible  SBP  beneficiary  by  operation  of  the 
law on the first anniversary of their marriage.  DFAS-CL records 
erroneously  reflect  the  applicant’s  name  and  date  of  birth 
(20 Oct  49)  as  the  eligible  spouse  beneficiary  and  SBP  premiums 
continue to be deducted from the member’s retired pay. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 

 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSIAR  indicates  that  since  the  request  involves  two 
potential SBP beneficiaries, no recommendation is provided.   
 
The complete DPSIAR evaluation is at Exhibit B. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
On 7 May 12, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to 
the applicant and the former member for review and comment within 
30 days.  To date, a response has not been received (Exhibit C & 
D). 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
On 19 Sep 12, the applicant and the former member were provided 
an  advisory  prepared  by  SAF/GCM  on  similar  cases  considered  by 
the Board.  The Board has been advised that it can consider cases 
involving  potential  claims  by  more  than  one  spouse  or  former 
spouse  if  there  is  evidence  that  the  member  or  former  spouse 
timely notified the Government within one year after the divorce 
was final, or if there are extraordinary circumstances that would 
justify  correction  of  the  record.    For  example,  extraordinary 
circumstances might exist if the current spouse signs a notarized 
affidavit saying she waives her potential claim to the survivor 
benefits  in  favor  of  complying  with  the  member’s  obligations 
under the divorce agreement.  They were given 30 days to review 
and comment on this opinion (Exhibit E & F). 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
Her former spouse served for 22 years, and she served alongside 
him.    In  the  early  1990’s  her  husband  was  stationed  in  Iraq.  
When  her  husband  returned  from  his  tour  in  Iraq  he  was  a 
different person, both mentally and physically, and it splintered 
their  lives.    He  suffered  from  Post  Traumatic  Stress  Disorder 
(PTSD), which at that time, was something not commonly discussed 
or understood by the general public.  A couple of years after his 
return from Iraq, her husband took an early retirement and moved 
their family to Mexico.  In 1994, her husband left her and her 
14 year old daughter alone in a foreign country with no financial 
help.    She  managed  to  save  enough  money  to  move  her  and  her 
daughter back to the United States.  She found an attorney that 
was able to help her get the financial support from her divorce.  
However,  her  attorney  never  instructed  her  or  advised  her  on 

 
 

2

changing  her  status.    It  was  only  brought  to  her  attention 
recently when she called to get papers for filing her taxes. 
 
Her  ex-husband  is  now  remarried.    Her  ex-husband’s  physical 
ailments, incarceration, and complaints were surely recorded and 
documented with the Air Force while they were married. 
 
The applicant's complete response is at Exhibit G. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
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  are  not  persuaded  the  applicant  has 
sustained her burden of establishing the existence of either an 
error or injustice in the record.  In this regard, neither the 
former  service  member  nor  the  applicant  submitted  a  valid 
election within the one-year period required by law to establish 
former spouse coverage.  Because of this, by operation of law the 
former  service  member’s  current  spouse  became  the  legal 
beneficiary of his SBP.  We are not unsympathetic to her dilemma; 
however, only in the most unique of circumstances would the Board 
make a ruling in a case that involves two claimants to a benefit 
that only one of them can receive.  In view of the foregoing, and 
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-2012-01101  in  Executive  Session  on  27  Nov  12,  under  the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 

3

  Panel Chair 
  Member 
  Member 

 
 
 
 
The  following  documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  Docket  Number 
BC-2012-01101 was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Mar 12, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIAR, dated 30 Apr 12. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 May 12. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Mar 12. 
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Sep 12, w/atch. 
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Sep 12, w/atch. 
    Exhibit G.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 19 Oct 12. 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Panel Chair 

  
  

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

4