Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03072
Original file (BC-2012-03072.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:		DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-03072
		
	            (DECEASED)		COUNSEL:  NONE

	            (APPLICANT)		HEARING DESIRED:  YES


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her deceased husband’s records be corrected to reflect that he 
elected “Spouse Only” coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan 
(SBP) instead of “Child Only” coverage. 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time of her husband’s retirement, they were given 
inadequate information regarding the SBP and the “Child Only” 
option was never in the best interest of their family.  They did 
not realize this until after her husband retired.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A.

_________________ ______________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the Certificate of Death provided by the applicant, 
the service member died on 7 Aug 92 due to cardiac arrest and 
probable myocardium rupture.  The applicant was listed as his 
surviving spouse.

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 Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPFFF recommends denial, indicating the applicant’s 
assertion that they did not receive the proper information at 
the time of her deceased husband’s retirement is without merit.  
She offers no explanation of why her deceased husband failed to 
seek correction of his records after his 1978 retirement or 
before his death in 1992, nor did he elect coverage for her 
during the open enrollment from 1 Oct 81 to 30 Sep 82.  The 
deceased former member elected “child only” coverage prior to 
his 1 Aug 78 retirement.  Additionally, there is no evidence 
that the SBP counselor did not fully explain the options and the 
effects of the SBP to the service member and the applicant.  
Given that a presumption of regularity attaches to government 
affairs, in the absence of specific evidence to the contrary, it 
is presumed that officers of the government, like other public 
officials, discharge their duties correctly, lawfully, and in 
good faith.  

Furthermore, even if there was evidence of an error or injustice 
with respect to the deceased former member’s SBP election, the 
six-year statute of limitations requires a claim for payment of 
SBP annuities be submitted within six years of the member’s 
death.  In accordance with Hart v. United States, 910 F.2e 815 
(Federal Circuit Court 1990), a claim filed more than six years 
after the death of a service member is barred by the six year 
statute of limitations.  Absent receipt of a valid claim, the 
Air Force has no legal authority to pay the survivor an SBP 
annuity, and payment “shall be forever barred.”  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIAR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant indicates that she does not recall an open 
enrollment period and states her family was in transition during 
this period, moving between three different states.  She 
mentions that she met the North Carolina Department of Veterans 
Administration (NCDVA) after her husband’s death and was not 
provided the statute of limitations information leading her to 
think she had no recourse.  She made subsequent visits to the 
NCDVA over the years thinking she was going to the appropriate 
source.  Lastly, she asserts that her husband’s decision making 
capability was limited due to his depression and mental 
struggles at the time of his retirement and subsequent years 
leading up to his death.  He was only capable of the most basic 
of tasks.  

A complete copy of the applicant’s 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 an error or injustice.  We took 
notice of the applicant’s complete submission, including her 
rebuttal response, in judging the merits of the case; however, 
we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force 
office of primary responsibility (OPR) 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 issues 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 an 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-2012-03072 in Executive Session on 7 Nov 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	             , Panel Chair
	             , Member
	             , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	 Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Jun 12, w/atchs.
	 Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	 Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIAR, dated 6 Sep 12.
	 Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Sep 12.
	 Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Dec 12.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair






3




Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02569

    Original file (BC-2010-02569.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 applicant’s 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 applicant’s behalf. We took notice of the applicant's...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-01608

    Original file (BC-2010-01608.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The member and spouse were married on 8 Oct 41. DPSIAR states SBP is awarded to common-law spouses who properly validate they resided in a state that recognizes common-law marriages and the union existed for one full year – the required length of post-retirement marriages before the spouse becomes eligible as an SBP beneficiary. Moreover, all three of these requisites must exist at the same time.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 01987

    Original file (BC 2012 01987.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    She filed for the SBP annuity and was informed that her husband never elected SBP spouse coverage. DPSIAR notes that in all of these cases, the facts were essentially the same as in this case except the applicant failed to request correction within six years of the member’s death and her notarized statement claiming the member had told her “over and over again” that she was to receive his pension does not meet the standard criteria for a Barber affidavit, i.e., (1) she was not notified at...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 03362

    Original file (BC 2007 03362.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The member and the applicant were allegedly married in Tijuana, Mexico on 8 Jun 82, and he elected spouse only coverage based on a reduced level of retired pay during the open enrollment authorized by Public Law (PL) 97-35 (1 Oct 81 – 30 Sep 82). The Air Force office of primary responsibility has recommended that we consider voiding the decedent's 23 Sep 82 election for SBP coverage for the applicant, suggesting that the "erroneous deductions of SBP premiums for spouse coverage be refunded...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2011-05023

    Original file (BC-2011-05023.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, they were married on 3 Jan 2011. In order for a spouse, who married a member after his/her retirement, to be considered eligible for the SBP annuity, the post-retirement marriage must endure for one full year from the date of marriage. Although the applicant provides evidence that recognizes their relationship as a marriage, the law requires a member to be married for one full year before the widow is eligible for SBP payments, assuming the member...

  • 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 | CY2008 | BC-2008-02569

    Original file (BC-2008-02569.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    His record contains a copy of a 28 Apr 93 letter from DFAS-DE advising him, among other things, that the 12 Feb 93 open enrollment election he submitted was “invalid” because block 10 did not indicate the base amount upon which he wished to establish coverage. His open enrollment election form contained what appears to be the monthly SBP premium amount he thought would be collected from his retired pay if he elected coverage on a reduced level of retired pay. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-04144

    Original file (BC-2009-04144.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Public Law (PL) which established the SBP on 21 Sep 72 authorized an enrollment period for members, who were already retired at that time, to elect SBP coverage. Members who were unmarried on the date of retirement have one year to elect SBP coverage for the first spouse acquired after that date. _______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01351

    Original file (BC-2012-01351.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DPSIDAR states that there is no evidence of Air Force error in this case; however, in the absence of 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 APPLICANT as the former spouse beneficiary, effective 11 January 2005. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9702519

    Original file (9702519.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He could have elected former spouse SBP coverage for her during the 1992 open enrollment. However, spouse premiums could be terminated following divorce if the member additionally selected Option 4. He could have elected former spouse SBP coverage for her during the 92 open enrollment.