RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00775
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to establish Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP)
coverage for his spouse.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He thought his spouse was covered under the SBP; however, his
retiree account statement does not reflect her as being covered.
Since his retirement, in 1994, he believed she was covered and now
realizes that his documents are incorrect.
The applicants complete submission is at Exhibit A.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPFFF recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an
error or an injustice.
DPFF notes that a member is required to make an SBP decision prior
to retiring. Public Law (PL) 99-145, 8 Nov 85, established the
requirement that a spouse's written concurrence be obtained if a
member, who retires on or after 1 Mar 86, elects less than full
spouse SBP coverage (Title 10, USC Section 1448 (a)(3)). If the
spouse does not concur in the election, coverage will be
established on the spouse's behalf by operation of law. 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. When child SBP
coverage is established, all eligible children are potential
beneficiaries. In the event of the member's death, an annuity
will be paid in equal shares to the children who remain eligible.
Unmarried children remain eligible until age 18, or 22 if in
school full-time.
PL's 105-261 and 108-375 authorized open enrollment periods (1 Mar
99 - 29 Feb 00 and 1 Oct 05 - 30 Sep 06, respectively) that
allowed members, who declined or had less than the maximum level
of SBP coverage, an opportunity to elect to participate or
increase their coverage.
The applicant and his spouse were married, but he elected child
only SBP coverage based on full retired pay prior to his 1 May
94 retirement, and his spouse concurred in his election. The
premium for child only coverage was less than $4 per month. Had
the applicant elected spouse and child coverage, the cost for his
spouse and eligible children would have been approximately $88 per
month. The youngest child lost eligibility in Jul 07 due to age.
There is no evidence the applicant submitted a valid election to
add his wife during the 99 - 00 or 05 06 open enrollment
periods.
The applicant made a valid SBP election for child only coverage
with his spouse's concurrence. It was the applicant's
responsibility to elect the SBP coverage that best suited his
family at that time. His spouse's signature on section VIII of
the DD Form 2656, Data for Payment of Retired Personnel, indicates
her acknowledgement of the decision to elect child only SBP
coverage and that she received information that explains the
options available and effects of those options. The applicant had
three opportunities to elect SBP coverage for his spouse, but
failed to do so.
The complete DPFFF evaluation is at Exhibit B.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 30 May 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C).
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 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 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 not been the victim of an error of injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
basis to recommend granting the requested relief.
4. The applicants 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 issue 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 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-2014-00775 in Executive Session on 17 Feb 15 under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Feb 14.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPFFF, dated 15 May 14.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 14.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05370
The Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) records reflect the applicant and his former spouse were married on 9 Nov 85, but his retired pay records reflect he elected child only SBP coverage based on full retired pay prior to his 1 Mar 88 retirement. There is no record of any spouse SBP premiums ever being deducted from the applicants retired pay. We took notice of the applicants complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05461
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: At the time of her husbands retirement in June 1988, she was not informed of her survivor benefit rights as a spouse. 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. Even though the applicant claims she was not provided an SBP election to sign and was not informed of the members election, finance...
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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-04931
DPFFF states that the applicants sister was over the age of 22 and his deceased father did not name her as a contingent disabled child beneficiary. 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 applicants deceased father has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04082
He was not advised prior to or during his out processing that he could elect spouse SBP coverage for his wife. 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: AFPC/DPFFF recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. We took notice of the applicants complete submission in judging the merits of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04626
________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFFF recommends approval, stating, in part, there is no evidence of Air Force error in this case and absent a competing claimant, DPFFF recommends the decedent's record be corrected to reflect on 1 Feb 94, he elected to change SBP spouse to former spouse coverage based on full retired pay, naming the applicant as the former spouse beneficiary. Considering the applicant failed to execute a deemed...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02539
PL 92-425, which established the SBP on 21 Sep 72, authorized an 18- month enrollment period (21 Sep 72 - 20 Mar 74) for retired members to elect SBP coverage, but were not required to return an SBP election form in order to decline coverage. RSFPP participants could have terminated previous RSFPP coverage, or retained it in addition to a new SBP election. There were no provisions in the laws during these open enrollment periods requiring the Services to notify spouses of retired members...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03945
In the event the applicant provides the requested documents, it would be appropriate to correct the decedents 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, Applicants Response, dated 31 Dec 13, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00502
If a member fails to make an election before then, SBP coverage for that person or another person of that category may be elected only if Congress authorizes an open enrollment period. Providing this applicant additional time to elect SBP coverage would be inequitable to other retirees in similar situations and is not justified by the facts. 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...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Air Force stated that the applicant was married and elected child only SBP coverage based on full retired pay prior to his 12 May 83 disability retirement. If a member withdraws under this provision, there is no immediate refund of premiums; however, applicable spouse premiums paid by the member can be refunded to the spouse following the member’s death. ...