RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00754
		INDEX CODE 137.01
	 	COUNSEL:  ROBERT G. BERNSTEIN

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her former husband’s records be corrected to delete the July 1999 entry in his retired pay record that canceled her eligibility as a Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) beneficiary or, in the alternative a deemed election be added, effective 11 January 1994.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

As part of their divorce she was to continue to be listed as his SBP beneficiary, and he agreed to do so.  However, neither he, nor the attorney, knew they had to forward a copy of the divorce decree to the Air Force within one year after the divorce.

In support of the appeal, the applicant submits her personal declaration and a copy of her Separation Agreement.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the former service member's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force (Exhibit C).  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPTR recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that there is no evidence the service member attempted to establish former spouse SBP coverage on the applicant’s behalf within the time allowed.  However, the agreement provided the option to maintain SBP coverage either for the applicant or their children.  It appears the member complied with the imprecise language of the court order when he continued child only coverage until the youngest child lost eligibility.  The service member’s decision not to convert child only coverage to former spouse coverage is clearly indicative of his intent not to maintain SBP coverage for her.

The AFPC/DPPTR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant’s counsel reviewed the evaluation and states that the evaluation is incorrect in stating that coverage and premiums were suspended from the spouse portion of the SBP after November 1993.  The premiums for spouse coverage were collected through 1 July 1999.  The applicant understands and agrees to pay the premium of $159.89 a month from 1 July 1999 through 19 December 2001.  However, if she is required to repay premiums from November 1993, she will do so.

Counsel’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that relief should be granted. It appears the member complied with the imprecise language of the court order when he continued child only coverage until the youngest child lost eligibility.  Furthermore, it appears he did not intend to maintain SBP coverage for the applicant based on his decision not to convert child only coverage to former spouse coverage.  The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  The office of primary responsibility has adequately addressed applicant’s contentions and we agree with their opinion and we adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden that she has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Hence, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Docket Number 02-00754 in Executive Session on 16 August 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Feb 02, w/atchs.
  	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
  	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPTR, dated 17 Apr 02.
  	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Apr 02.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Counsel, dated 20 May 02, w/atchs.