RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2014-03524
		
 						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) be changed back to child only 
coverage instead of spouse and child coverage.   


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On 8 Jul 14, he changed his child only SBP coverage to spouse 
and child coverage.  Consequently, he received a letter from the 
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) dated 18 Jul 
14, stating he had to pay $3,842.88 for undercharged SBP 
premiums.

On 6 Aug 14, he requested his SBP be changed back to child only 
coverage; however, his 29 Aug 14 Retiree Account Statement (RAS) 
reflects spouse and child coverage and a debt for SBP.  He was 
unable to resolve the issue with DFAS and was advised to submit 
an application to the AFBCMR.

In support of his request, he provides copies of DD Forms 2656-
6, Survivor Benefit Plan Election Change Certificate; RAS and a  
letter from DFAS dated 18 Jul 14.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 1 Nov 06, the applicant retired in the grade of Technical 
Sergeant (TSgt, E-6). 
?

The applicant provides signed, notarized affidavits from him and 
his spouse dated 18 Apr 15 (Exhibit F).   His affidavit states 
he is currently married, the date of marriage is 23 Sep 10 and 
that his current spouse has completed a release of benefits.  
Her affidavit reflects she initialed Item 5, “Having been fully 
advised of my right to SBP benefits, I hereby relinquish any 
competing interest I may have in the aforesaid benefits in favor 
of my spouse’s former spouse, as identified in #3 above.” 


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPFFF recommends denial as there is no evidence of an error 
or injustice.  However, if the Board’s decision is to grant 
relief, the applicant’s records should be corrected to show that 
on 22 Sep 11, he elected not to resume SBP spouse coverage.  
Approval should be contingent upon obtaining a notarized 
statement from his spouse concurring in the permanent revocation 
of the SBP coverage in effect on her behalf since 23 Sep 11.  

As background, SBP spouse coverage is basically irrevocable as 
long as there is an eligible beneficiary, but is suspended when 
the spouse loses eligibility. Public Law (PL) 99-145 allows a 
participant, with suspended spouse coverage, to elect not to 
resume coverage for a subsequently acquired spouse.  However, 
the new spouse will be automatically covered at the previous 
level on the first anniversary of the marriage if the member 
takes no action before that date.  Premiums for the coverage 
become effective the first day of the thirteenth month and DFAS-
CL will compute the retroactive costs when evidence of the 
remarriage becomes a matter of record.

The Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) 
records show the applicant requested spouse and child SBP 
coverage based on full retired pay prior to his 1 Nov 
06 retirement.  He was divorced on 7 Sep 10 and the spouse 
coverage was suspended.  He then married his current spouse on 
23 Sep 10 but failed to inform DFAS-CL that he did not want to 
extend SBP coverage to her before the first anniversary of their 
marriage.  On 8 Jul 14, DFAS-CL received the DD Form 2656-6 and 
a copy of the marriage certificate requesting to resume spouse 
coverage.  Upon learning of his remarriage, DFAS reinstated the 
spouse coverage retroactive to 23 Sep 11 (first anniversary of 
their marriage), monthly premiums began to be deducted from his 
retired pay as required by law and the retroactive SBP premium 
debt (approximately $3,842) began to be recovered.  

The implementing SBP statute ensured that qualified spouses are 
afforded the protection of the SBP regardless of the 
participant’s failure or delay in notifying DFAS of their 
marriage.  This automatic feature of the SBP was adjusted by PL 
99-145, but requires a participant to take the appropriate 
action to prevent coverage from being re-established.  It is 
unfortunate that the applicant failed to notify DFAS in a timely 
manner of his marriage, in order to preclude a debt or to deny 
SBP coverage for her.  Retired members are personally 
responsible to ensure they obtain or exempt their dependents’ 
eligibility for military benefits.  Participants should contact 
DFAS-CL immediately upon gaining or losing a potential SBP 
beneficiary to determine their options.  In the event the 
applicant had died, his spouse would have been entitled to 
receive SBP payments of approximately $1,027 per month after the 
retroactive SBP premium debt had been satisfied.  To provide the 
applicant an additional opportunity to not resume SBP spouse 
coverage would be inequitable to other military members in 
similar situations and is not justified by the facts.  
 
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFFF evaluation, with attachments, 
is at Exhibit B.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In a letter dated 5 Mar 15, he states his spouse provided a 
letter relinquishing the SBP benefit.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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 timely filed.

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 in judging the 
merits of the case, to include the affidavit from the 
applicant’s spouse agreeing to relinquish the SBP benefit; 
however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice.  
Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the 
Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the 
rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the 
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that he has 
been the victim of an error of injustice.  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-2014-03524 in Executive Session on 12 Jun 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Vice Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Aug 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPFFF, dated 1 Dec 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Feb 15.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Mar 15.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Apr 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit F.  Affidavits, Applicant, dated 18 Apr 15.