Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03261
Original file (BC 2013 03261.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:		DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03261
	XXXXXXXXXX	 	(DECEASED)	COUNSEL: NONE
	XXXXXXXXXX	 	(APPLICANT)	HEARING DESIRED: NO


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her husband’s (decedent) records be corrected to show he made a 
timely election for spouse coverage under the Reserve Component 
Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP).

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was not properly informed of the decedent’s non-election.  He 
was recovering from a left hemisphere aneurysm and lacked the 
capacity to comprehend the importance and time constraints of his 
retirement documents.

The applicant provides no rationale as to why her failure to 
timely file should be waived in the interest of justice.

In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of the 
decedent’s medical records, marriage certificate, death 
certificate and various other items related to her request.

Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was transferred to the Retired Reserve List 
effective 15 September 1996.  He was eligible for Reserve retired 
pay at age 60 under the provisions of Title 10, United States 
Code, § 1331.

The applicant would have turned 60 on 4 October 2014.

On 15 February 2013, at age 58, the applicant died from acute 
myocardial infraction.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPTT recommends denial.  On 4 December 1996, the decedent 
signed for the RCSBP election package that was mailed to his 
residence.  He had 90 calendar days from the date of notification 
to make a RCSBP election by returning an ARPC Form 123, RCSBP 
Election Certificate.  He did not respond during the 90-day period 
and as prescribed by Title 10 USC Subsection 1448, he was 
automatically covered under Option A, "Defer to make election 
until age 60."  At the time of this election the decedent was 
married with dependent children.  The decedent was afforded two 
opportunities to upgrade his election after his automatic election 
was updated.  Congress declared two RCSBP Open Enrollment Seasons 
from 1 March 1999 through 29 February 2000 and 1 October 
2005 through 30 September 2006.  Members who had previously 
elected less than full coverage, or no coverage for their 
spouse/children, were afforded the opportunity to change their 
election to cover their families.  The applicant did not elect to 
participate during the aforementioned time frames.

The complete DPTT evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 21 March 2014, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded 
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, 
a response has not been received (Exhibit D).


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 to warrant adding 
his spouse to his RCSBP.  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.  In view of the above and 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 9 October 2014, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603:

      , Vice Chair
      , Member
      , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2013-03261:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 June 2013, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ARPC/DPTT, dated 8 March 2014, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 March 2014.




Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00793

    Original file (BC-2011-00793.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 25 Aug 1994, the decedent and the applicant divorced. If the documents were provided within the required timeframe, DPTT would have been unable to update the member's RCSBP election due to the member not electing to participate in the Plan when eligible. _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In further support of her request, the applicant provides two letters.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00112

    Original file (BC 2014 00112.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Records indicate that he did not elect to participate during these timeframes. 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. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 September 2014.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04887

    Original file (BC 2013 04887.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04887 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her late spouse’s record be changed to show he elected spouse coverage under the Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP). On 22 February 2000, APPLICANT, submitted a timely and effective claim for a survivor benefit annuity. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 May 2014.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02769

    Original file (BC 2013 02769.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IAW U.S.C., Title 10, Subsection 1448(a)(2)(B), “A person who is eligible to participate in the plan and who is married or has a dependent child when he is notified that he has completed the years of service required for eligibility for reserve-component retired pay, and elects to participate in the plan by designation before the end of the 90-day period beginning on the date he receives such notification.” DPTT’s system confirms the applicant reported her husband’s death to ARPC on 28 March...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01662

    Original file (BC-2013-01662.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant and the decedent divorced on 25 June 2010. The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit B. The divorce decree did not award former spouse coverage under the RCSBP as dictated by law.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01612

    Original file (BC 2014 01612.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01612 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be designated as beneficiary for “former spouse” coverage under the decedent’s Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP). The applicant was awarded full survivor benefit annuity under RCSBP by court order. However, the applicant did not notify ARPC of her RCSBP election within one year as prescribed by...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00961

    Original file (BC-2013-00961.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    She made several inquiries in regards to the decedent’s elected survivor benefits, only to be told each time that she was not eligible due to his type of retirement. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPTT recommends denial, indicating the decedent was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03156

    Original file (BC-2012-03156.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The decedent did not elect to participate during this Open Season. In view of the above, 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. You have the right to submit newly discovered relevant evidence for consideration by the Board.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00961

    Original file (BC 2013 00961.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    She made several inquiries in regards to the decedent’s elected survivor benefits, only to be told each time that she was not eligible due to his type of retirement. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPTT recommends denial, indicating the decedent was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00973

    Original file (BC-2012-00973.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPTT states that in view of the fact that the decedent would have been eligible for retired pay at age 60, the applicant is eligible for an Identification Card and Base-Exchange and Commissary privileges effective 6 March 2000. 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...