RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05575
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. Her husbands records be corrected to show that he was on
active duty in the Air Force from 22 Oct 61 until his retirement
on 30 Sep 81.
2. Her husbands records be corrected to show that he was on
active duty in the Army from 21 Apr 52 to 29 Jan 55.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Correspondence from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA),
dated 21 Jan 13 reflects his period of service from 22 Oct 61 to
30 Sep 81 as unknown.
The DVA letter also reflects he was in the Air Force with an
honorable discharge from 21 Apr 52 to 29 Jan 55.
The error was discovered upon his death on 22 Sep 13.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
According to the decedents DD Form 214, Report of Separation
from the Armed Forces of the United States, the decedent entered
the Regular Army on 21 Apr 52 and was honorably discharged on
29 Jan 55. He was credited with 2 years, 9 months and 9 days of
active duty service this period.
According to the decedents DD Form 214, Certificate of Release
or Discharge from Active Duty, the decedent entered the Regular
Air Force on 22 Oct 61 and was retired on 30 Sep 81. He was
credited with 19 years, 11 months and 9 days of active duty
service this period.
According to the death certificate issued by the State of
Florida, file number 2013129485, he died on 22 Sep 13.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIPV recommends denial of the applicants request to
correct the decedents service dates. The decedent served on
active duty in the Air Force from 22 Oct 61 to 30 Sep 81 as
reflected on his DD Form 214. The applicant will need to
provide the DVA a copy of the decedents DD Form 214.
A complete copy of the DPSIPV evaluation, with attachment, is at
Exhibit C.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 15 May 14 for review and comment within 30 days
(Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by
this office.
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by
existing law or regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. We took
notice of the applicants 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 failed to sustain her burden of an error of
injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested
relief.
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-2013-05575 in Executive Session on 20 Jan 15 under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Forms 149, dated, 25 Nov 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIPV, dated 16 Apr 14,
w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 May 14.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 03362
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...
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.
They stated the laws controlling the SBP preclude a married member, who declined spouse coverage at the time of retirement, from providing SBP former spouse coverage following divorce unless Congress authorizes an open enrollment. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit B. 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...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant indicates that the length of time since the decedent retired and the application was filed have likely contributed to the incomplete records available for review in this case. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded to the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1984-04083A
On 13 Oct 83, his commander recommended discharge. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant contends, as a diabetic herself, that her husband’s elevated blood sugar episode was not properly followed up by the Air Force. Review of service and DVA medical records through 1992 show no evidence of diabetes, and evaluation by DVA physicians also indicate no...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1991-02293A
On 13 Oct 83, his commander recommended discharge. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant contends, as a diabetic herself, that her husband’s elevated blood sugar episode was not properly followed up by the Air Force. Review of service and DVA medical records through 1992 show no evidence of diabetes, and evaluation by DVA physicians also indicate no...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00953
Subsequently, Public Laws (PLs) 97-35, 101-189, and 105-261 authorized additional SBP open enrollment periods (1 Oct 81 – 30 Sep 82, 1 Apr 92 – 31 Mar 93, and 1 Mar 99 – 29 Feb 00, respectively) so that retirees could elect or increase SBP coverage. Similarly, the Air Force may not pay an SBP annuity to the applicant, because the member retired before the implementation of the SBP and he did not choose to provide SBP coverage for her when he was eligible to do so. Exhibit C. Letter,...
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 | CY2006 | BC-2005-02915
Public Law (PL) 92-425, which established the SBP on 21 Sep 72, authorized an enrollment period for retired members to elect SBP coverage. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit B. 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 applicant has not been the victim of...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03657
On 25 Oct 61, he was honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserve in the grade of airman third class. Therefore, based on the evidence of record, we find no error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do not believe the former service member has been the victim of an error or injustice. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Jan 07.