Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01541
Original file (BC-2012-01541.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 
 

DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-01541 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
COUNSEL: NONE 
     
HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:  
 
Her  former  spouse’s  record  be  corrected  to  show  he  elected 
“former  spouse”  coverage  based  on  full  retired  pay  under  the 
Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
She was the beneficiary of her former husband’s SBP policy, and 
was  to  remain  as  such  under  a  legal  court  agreement.    She 
consulted her lawyer about the legality of this agreement and was 
assured of its validity as agreements made in court are binding. 
 
In  support  of  her  appeal,  the  applicant  provides  a  personal 
statement,  her  former’s  husband’s  death  certificate,  and  their 
divorce decree.   
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The  decedent  is  a  former  member  of  the  Regular  Air  Force  who 
elected spouse and child coverage based on full retired pay under 
the  SBP  prior  to  his  1  February  1975  retirement.    Effective 
December 1992, there were no longer any eligible children.  There 
is no evidence the decedent submitted an election to voluntarily 
change spouse coverage to former spouse coverage within the first 
year following their divorce.   
 
The  Defense  Enrollment  Eligibility  Reporting  System  (DEERS) 
reflects  the  member  and  Patricia  married  on  20  May  2001.    The 
member advised the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) 
of his marriage, and DFAS updated his record.  The decedent’s SBP 
coverage  was  established  on  Patricia’s  behalf  on  the  first 
anniversary of their marriage.  Monthly premiums continued to be 
deducted from the member’s retired pay when he became “paid-up.”  
DEERS reflects Patricia died on 23 July 2009, and the member died 

on 4 May 2010.  There is no indication he remarried before his 
death.   
 
The remaining relevant facts are contained in the letter prepared 
by  the  Air  Force  office  of  primary  responsibility  (OPR)  at 
Exhibit B.   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSIAR indicates that absent a certified copy of the final 
divorce decree and/or qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), 
they  have  no  basis  to  make  a  recommendation.    DPSIAR  requested 
the  applicant  provide  a  certified  copy  of  the  final  divorce 
decree and/or the QDRO, which she claimed awarded SBP coverage to 
her  following  divorce.    The  applicant  responded  that  the  court 
documents she provided with her request are the only final paper 
issued to her.  Nevertheless, the submitted document is not the 
final divorce decree.   
 
In the event the applicant provides the requested documents which 
prove the court awarded SBP coverage to her, absence a competing 
claimant and to prevent a possible injustice, they recommend the 
decedent’s  record  be  corrected  to  reflect  he  elected  former 
spouse coverage based on full retired pay, naming XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
as  the  former  spouse  beneficiary,  effective  the  date  following 
the  date  the  divorce  decree  was  finalized.    Approval  should  be 
contingent upon recovery of appropriate retroactive costs.   
 
The complete DPSIAR evaluation is at Exhibit B. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 
on 14 August 2012, 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.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or an injustice.  We took 
notice  of  the  applicant's  complete  submission  in  judging  the 

 

2 

merits  of  the  case;  however,  we  conclude  the  applicant  has  not 
been the victim of an error or injustice.  Although the applicant 
claims she is entitled to SBP benefits as a result of their legal 
court  agreement,  the  evidence  presented  is  insufficient  to 
validate this assertion.  Additionally, we took note of the hand-
written note on the court order verifying her entitlement to SBP; 
however,  this  does  not  constitute  a  legal  entitlement.  
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  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  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number  BC-2012-01541  in  Executive  Session  on  27  November  2012, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
The  following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-01541: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Mar 12, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Letter, ARPC/DPSIAR, dated 11 Jun 12. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Aug 12. 

, Panel Chair 
, Member 
, Member 

  

 

 
 

 
Panel Chair 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

3 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00454

    Original file (BC-2012-00454.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    To comply with federal law, AFAFC established spouse coverage based on full retired pay under the SBP, updated the applicant’s date of birth as the eligible spouse beneficiary and began deducting premiums from the service member’s retired pay. The DPSIAR complete evaluation is at Exhibit B. 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...

  • 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 | CY2010 | BC-2010-04295

    Original file (BC-2010-04295.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04295 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be entitled to benefits under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIAR did not provide a recommendation. The complete AFRBA Legal Advisor...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02752

    Original file (BC-2012-02752.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    There is no evidence of Air Force error in this case and absent a competing claimant, DPSIAR recommends the member's record be corrected to reflect on 10 Apr 2009, he elected to change SBP spouse to former spouse coverage based on full retired pay, naming the applicant as the former spouse beneficiary. There is no evidence of Air Force error; however, to preclude an injustice, we agree with AFPC/DPSIAR’s recommendation that the member’s records should be corrected to reflect that he made a...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 02752

    Original file (BC 2012 02752.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The member did not request coverage for his former spouse be terminated and the fact that SBP premiums were deducted from his retired pay for over three years following their divorce are indicative of his intent to maintain the applicant as the eligible SBP beneficiary. There is no evidence of Air Force error in this case and absent a competing claimant, DPSIAR recommends the member's record be corrected to reflect on 10 Apr 2009, he elected to change SBP spouse to former spouse coverage...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-03529

    Original file (BC-2012-03529.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force which is at...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 02043

    Original file (BC 2012 02043.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: While married, the member elected spouse and child coverage based on a reduced level of retired pay under the SBP prior to his 1 Jun 73 retirement. There is no record of marriage at the time of his death. While counsel argues the former member never married; the evidence of record, specifically, the death certificate states otherwise.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01544

    Original file (BC-2012-01544.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the available evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, it appears the decedent and the applicant were married in Feb 09. Subsequent to the divorce of his first spouse, a deemed election for former spouse coverage was submitted to DFAS and accepted in accordance with the divorce decree and the governing law. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Jun 12.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-02265

    Original file (BC-2012-02265.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was also provided an advisory (Exhibit C) 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. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02192

    Original file (BC-2011-02192.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02192 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________ __ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her former spouse’s records be corrected to reflect he made a timely election for former spouse coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). The service member elected spouse only coverage under the SBP at full retirement pay. Since the applicant...