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).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was told at the time of her retirement that she was not
eligible for SBP due to her and her spouse both being military
members.
In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a Defense
Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) letter in response to a
Congressional Inquiry.
The applicants 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 her 1 September 1991 retirement.
Records reflect her spouse concurred in her 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) which is
at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIAR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of
an error or injustice. While they cannot confirm or deny the
applicants claim she and her spouse were provided incorrect
information about their eligibility to elect SBP coverage on each
others 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 she has been retired before
her March 2012 Congressional Inquiry she submitted to DFAS.
Furthermore, there is no evidence the applicant submitted an open
enrollment election to provide SBP coverage on her spouses
behalf during any of the opportunities authorized by Public Laws
subsequent to his retirement.
It is each service members responsibility to ensure required
actions are taken 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 similarly situated members. There is no evidence of Air
Force error or injustice in this case.
The complete AFPC/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 the applicant has not
been the victim of an error or injustice. 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 issue(s)
involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably
considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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-2012-02263 in Executive Session on 19 December 2012,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence 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
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-2012-01918
_________________________________________________________________ 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. 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. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in...
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-2012-03938
DPSIAR forwarded these documents to DFAS-CL and requested her SBP record be adjusted to reflect child only coverage based on full retired pay under the SBP, retroactive to her 1 October 1996 retirement, stop spouse SBP premium and refund the difference in monthly premiums subject to the 6-year statute of limitations. Evidence has been provided that supports the applicant was not married and attempted to elect child only coverage prior to her 1 October 1996 retirement. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00429
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIAR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: She was not provided or informed on the law and requirements of SBP. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02878
DPSIAR states the Barring Act limits payments of SBP annuities to those claims received within six years of the participants death. However, if the Boards decision is to grant relief and set aside the Barring Act, the decedents retired pay records should be corrected to reflect the applicant submitted a valid claim for payment of the SBP on 20 February 2000. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He has already...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02569
The deceased member elected spouse and child SBP coverage based on full-retired pay during the initial enrollment period. DPSIAR states the law in effect at the time of the applicants divorce did not allow retired members to provide SBP coverage even if they wished to voluntarily continue their former spouse eligibility; therefore, the fact the divorce decree mentioned the SBP does not provide standing to establish SBP coverage on the applicants behalf. We took notice of the applicant's...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03982
The former service member may file and election change or the former spouse may request the service member be deemed to make an election on his or her behalf. In the latter case, the former spouse must provide legal documentation the service member agreed, or the court ordered the service member, to establish former spouse coverage. She has not provided any evidence showing the former service member made an election for former spouse coverage within one year of their divorce as required by law.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00128
DPSIAR states there is no evidence of Air Force error in this case; however, in the interest of justice and absent a competing claimant, DPSIAR recommends the member's record be corrected to show he elected SBP former spouse coverage based on the previous reduced level of retired pay effective 31 May 2007, naming his former spouse as beneficiary. To date, a response has not been received (Exhibit C). _______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-01105
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. DPSIAR states there is no evidence of Air Force error and absent evidence of a competing spouse it would be appropriate to enforce the parties’ court-ordered agreement to continue SBP coverage in the applicant’s behalf. Although the Air Force office of primary responsibility recommends approval, in the absence of...