RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02406 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His records be corrected to show he established Survivor Benefit 
Plan (SBP) coverage for his eligible spouse in July 2008. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

During his 2008 SBP/Veterans Group Life Insurance (VGLI) 
briefing, he and his spouse were given the impression that the 
two programs were one and the same. When they declined VGLI 
they had no idea that they were declining a separate program 
from SBP. They believed the programs were a part of one 
package. It was not until he attended a 2012 SBP/VGLI briefing 
for his spouse’s pending retirement that he clearly understood 
that they were two separate programs and realized he had made a 
mistake in 2008. He and his spouse definitely elected the 2012 
SBP coverage because of the long term unquestionable benefits 
for family members left behind. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

According to documents extracted from the Automated Records 
Management System (ARMS), the applicant is a former member of 
the Regular Air Force who served from 17 June 1982 to 
30 June 2008. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSIAR recommends denial. DPSIAR states each person 
attends a one-on-one SBP briefing given by an SBP counselor 
prior to their retirement and while SBP counselors present facts 
and explain the provisions of the program during pre-retirement 
counseling, members are ultimately responsible for making the 
election that best meets their particular situation. 

 


 a. There is no indication the applicant was improperly 
counseled prior to his retirement. On 29 January 2008, the 
applicant elected spouse and child SBP coverage based on full 
retired pay. However, on 6 March 2008, prior to his 1 July 2008 
retirement, the SBP counselor at Langley AFB VA assisted the 
applicant in changing his election to decline SBP coverage and 
his spouse concurred with his election. 

 

 b. A copy of the SBP Report of Individual Person (RIP) located 
in the applicant's records shows he signed the certification 
sheet on 29 January 2008, indicating he was properly briefed on 
the options and effects of the Plan. On 6 March 2008, the 
applicant exercised his right to change his SBP election prior 
to his retirement. Furthermore, his spouse's signature in 
section XII of the DO Form 2656, indicates her acknowledgement 
of the decision to decline SBP coverage and that she received 
information that explains the options available and effects of 
those options. 

 

 c. SBP is similar to commercial life insurance in that an 
individual must elect to participate during the opportunities 
provided by the law and pay the associated premiums in order to 
have coverage. It would be inequitable to those members who 
chose to elect spouse coverage when eligible and subsequently 
received reduced retired pay, to provide an additional 
opportunity for this member to change his SBP election. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSIAR evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

1. In his response, the applicant reiterates his previous 
contentions and adds that because they felt the cost of the 
combined programs was too expensive they opted not to accept 
them. It was not until June 2012 during his spouse's one-on-one 
SBP and VGLI briefings at the Pentagon that they clearly learned 
that SBP and VGLI were not combined programs. 

 

2. They initially walked into the retirement briefing with the 
intent to decline SBP and VGLI as they did in 2008. However, 
after the counselor presented them with a power point 
presentation that was clear and easy to follow, explained the 
difference between SBP and VGLI, and answered each of their 
questions they immediately realized their decision in 2008 to 
decline SBP for his spouse was a huge mistake. The briefings 
they had been provided were in no way the same and could not be 
compared. For them, it was truly eye opening and for the first 
time they understood the programs intent. 

 

3. There is no doubt in his mind had he received the same 
briefing in 2008 that they received in June 2012 they would not 
have hesitated to accept his SBP coverage. He is fully prepared 


to pay back any and all associated premiums in order to have 
coverage for his spouse. He requests that the Board consider 
his integrity in this matter. This is the only evidence he has 
to submit. 

 

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 warranting 
corrective action. 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 neither the applicant nor his spouse 
submitted a valid election within the period required by law to 
establish spouse coverage. 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 this application 
in Executive Session on 13 March 2013, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

, Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2012-02406: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149 dated 23 May 2012. 


 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Record 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIAR, dated 19 July 2012. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 August 2012. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 20 August 2012. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair