Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05461
Original file (BC 2013 05461.txt) Auto-classification: Denied


RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:
		DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-05461
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her late spouse’s record be changed to show he elected spouse 
coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time of her husband’s retirement in June 1988, she was 
not informed of her survivor benefit rights as a spouse.  She 
did not sign a DD Form 2656, Survivor Benefit Plan Election 
Change Certificate.  The military failed in their responsibility 
to make sure that she was informed and represented.  She 
believes this to be an injustice.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The Defense Enrollment Eligibility System (DEERS) records show 
the applicant and the decedent married on 11 August 1980.  
Microfiche records produced by the Air Force Accounting and 
Finance Center (AFAFC) from July 1989 reflect the decedent 
declined SBP coverage with the applicant's concurrence prior to 
his 1 July 1988 retirement.

The member died on 4 July 2006, and no SBP premiums were ever 
deducted from his retired pay.











AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

DPFFF recommends denial.  DPFFF states there is no evidence the 
member submitted an election during the 1992 through 1993, 
1999 through 2000, or 2005 through 2006 open enrollment periods.

Even though the applicant claims she was not provided an SBP 
election to sign and was not informed of the member’s election, 
finance records reflect she concurred in his election to decline 
SBP coverage.  Absent a valid election, DFAS would have 
established full spouse and child coverage to comply with the 
law.  Furthermore, there is no record the member submitted an 
election on the applicant’s behalf under either PL 101-189 or 
105-261.  Had he made an election on the applicant’s behalf 
during the open enrollment authorized by PL 108-375, he would 
have been required to live at least until 1 October 2008 for the 
coverage to become valid.

The complete DPFFF evaluation is at Exhibit B.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states that she was not present when her late 
husband processed out, nor was she contacted by anyone or given 
forms to sign.  She did not know he declined coverage.  The SBP 
counselors and AFAFC technicians did not do their jobs.  The 
very absence of the DD Form 2656 in the system, when every other 
document was found, is proof in itself that this form does not 
exist.  Title 10 U.S.C., Section 1448 states “Spouse’s 
concurrence must be obtained and dated on or after the date of 
the member's election, but before the retirement/transfer date.  
If concurrence is not obtained when required - maximum coverage 
will be established for your spouse and child(ren) if 
appropriate.”

The applicant’s complete response is at 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 an error or an injustice.  We took 
notice of the applicant's complete submission, to include her 
rebuttal comments, 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 is not a 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.


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of an error or an 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-2013-05461 in Executive Session on 30 October 2014, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence was considered:

  Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 November 2013, w/atchs.
  Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPFFF, dated 18 March 2014.
  Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 August 2014.
  Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, not dated.


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY1997 | 9603174

    Original file (9603174.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    An AFAFC letter to the decedent, dated 7 October 1972, explained that SBP coverage had been established on his spouse's behalf in compliance with the provision of the law that required establishment of maximum spouse and child coverage if a member, such as the applicant, made no election before retirement. Documents provided by the applicant include a copy of a 7 Oct 72 letter to the decedent from the Air Force Accounting and Finance Center (AFAFC) which explained SBP coverage had been...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02773

    Original file (BC 2014 02773.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFFF recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. As of this date, no response has been received by this office. The Board would be willing to reconsider her request upon receipt of the applicant’s affidavit stating she did not receive the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03166

    Original file (BC 2013 03166.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    There is no evidence the applicant received the required notice, in accordance with Public Law 92-425, that her husband elected less than maximum spousal coverage under SBP. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 30 September 1981, he made a timely and effective election for spouse and child(ren) coverage under the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03945

    Original file (BC 2013 03945.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the event the applicant provides the requested documents, it would be appropriate to correct the decedent’s records to reflect his son is permanently incapable of self-support. While the applicant has provided medical documentation regarding her son, there is no evidence from a medical provider that her son is incabable of self support. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 31 Dec 13, w/atchs.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04695

    Original file (BC 2013 04695.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Another dependent child was born on 4 December 1981 after the decedent’s retirement. DPFFF states there is no evidence of Air Force error; however, to preclude an injustice, they recommend the record be corrected. The member’s record should be corrected to reflect he elected spouse and child coverage based on full retired pay effective 1 August 1980, and his son is permanently incapable of self- support.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 03821

    Original file (BC 2007 03821.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    DFAS records reflect the decedent elected maximum child only SBP coverage prior to his 1 Sep 89 retirement. Records further contain an annotation that the applicant concurred with the member’s SBP election prior to his retirement. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00775

    Original file (BC 2014 00775.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    When a member fails to elect SBP coverage for an eligible spouse, coverage cannot be established thereafter except during a Congressionally-mandated open enrollment period. Had the applicant elected spouse and child coverage, the cost for his spouse and eligible children would have been approximately $88 per month. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04233

    Original file (BC-2012-04233.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    She recently discovered that upon their divorce, her ex- husband failed to change the SBP election designation from “spouse” to “former spouse” as was required by their divorce agreement. Based on the favorable recommendation rendered by the Air Force office of primary responsibility indicating that since the member did not request SBP coverage be terminated upon his divorce from the applicant, he intended for her to remain his SBP beneficiary. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9800412

    Original file (9800412.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit B). Applicant's response to the advisory opinions is at Exhibit D. After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action. i - - 550 C Street West, Suite 14 Randolph AFB TX 78150-4716 MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR FROM: HQ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04848

    Original file (BC 2013 04848.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The name of spouse and dates to whom the decedent married is in error. When the former service member and the applicant married - he did not request SBP coverage be established on the applicant’s behalf within the first year of their marriage. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states that she has been trying to obtain benefits based on her late husband’s passing.