AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01918
COUNSEL: NONE
IN THE MATTER OF:
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His record be corrected to reflect he elected spouse coverage
under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was told at the time of retirement that he was not eligible
for SBP due to him and his wife both being military members.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a Defense
Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) letter in response to a
Congressional Inquiry.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who
declined SBP coverage prior to his 1 September 1991 retirement.
Records reflect his spouse concurred in his election, properly
complying with the provisions of Public Law 99-145.
The remaining relevant facts are contained in the letter prepared
by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) at
Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIAR recommends denial. DPSIAR states that while they
cannot confirm or deny the applicant’s claim he and his wife were
provided incorrect information about their eligibility to elect
SBP coverage on each other’s behalf, they are confident SBP
counselors discharged their official duties with professionalism,
diligence, and accuracy. The applicant offers no evidence of
attempts to seek correction during the twenty years he has been
retired before his March 2012 Congressional Inquiry he submitted
to DFAS. Furthermore, there is no evidence the applicant
submitted an open enrollment election to provide SBP coverage on
his wife’s behalf during any of the opportunities authorized by
Public Laws subsequent to his retirement.
DPSIAR indicates it is each member’s responsibility to ensure
required actions to provide current and future family members
with military benefits and privileges available to them and pay
the costs associated with these programs’ protection. It would
be inappropriate to provide the applicant an additional
opportunity to provide SBP coverage, an opportunity not afforded
to other members similarly situated. There is no evidence of Air
Force error or injustice in this case.
The complete DPSIAR evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 2 July 2012, 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 agree with the opinion and recommendation
of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has
not been the victim of an error or injustice. We note the
applicant’s contentions that he was told he was not eligible to
elect SBP coverage; however, we find no evidence, other than his
own assertions, to support he was miscounseled. Therefore, in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel
will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
2
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-2012-01918 in Executive Session on 19 December 2012,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2012-01918 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Apr 12, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIAR, dated 20 Jun 12
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Jul 12.
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
Panel Chair
3
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC 2010 02805
The applicant provided a copy of his 6 March 2008 letter to DFAS in which he claims he had requested SBP coverage be established for his wife by the middle of June 2005. However, DFAS records contain no evidence he submitted a valid request to elect SBP coverage for his wife within the first year of marriage. DPSIAR indicates the applicants intentions to provide SBP coverage for his wife are clear and apparently sincere; however, specific and timely action is required to elect SBP...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02263
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02263 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her record be corrected to reflect she elected spouse coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). Furthermore, there is no evidence the applicant submitted an open enrollment election to provide SBP coverage on her spouses behalf...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04712
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Six days after the divorce was final, her attorney submitted a request to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) for her portion of the retirement pay and a SBP election for former spouse coverage, both awarded to her by the court. By letter dated 2 Feb 94, DFAS notified her attorney that a specific form was needed for the division of retirement pay garnishment. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00286
DPSIAR indicates that since there is a possibility of Air Force error in this case, they recommend the applicant’s record be corrected to reflect he declined SBP coverage effective 21 June 2008. He wants his former spouse dropped from his SBP and is willing to pay for his son’s coverage since 30 June 2009. The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012- 00286 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Feb 12, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03360
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-02487
DFAS records reflect the applicant did not report the divorce until 22 February 2010, but at that time, the spouse’s portion of SBP coverage was retroactively suspended. On 2 August 2010, the applicant notified DFAS that he had a new child, but when he remarried on 23 September 2010, there was no evidence he properly terminated spouse coverage within the first year of their marriage. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01043
We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01895
________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force (exhibit B). The applicant married his wife on 17 December 2009, but failed to notify DFAS of the change to his marital status or request SBP coverage be established on his wifes behalf within the first year of their marriage. We took notice of the applicant's complete...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00900
As he did not elect coverage for his wife prior to his retirement, he may not establish SBP coverage for his spouse except during congressionally approved open enrollment periods. DPSIAR notes there is no error or injustice in this case and that the applicant had three opportunities to elect SBP coverage for his wife. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant contends the reason he did not take advantage of...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00432
The complete AFPC/DPSIAR evaluation is at Exhibit B. SAF/MRB Legal Advisor recommends denial of the applicants 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...