RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01037
		INDEX CODE: 137.00

	APPLICANT (Deceased)	COUNSEL:  None

	SSN	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her late-husband’s records be corrected to entitle her to a Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuity.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She does not recall declining SBP, nor did she sign the AF Form 1266/1267.  She would not have knowingly conceded to such a punitive outcome.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the deceased member’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force attached at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPTR  states   Public  Law  (PL)  99-145,  established  on 8 November 1985, required as of 1 March 1986 spousal concurrence of the SBP election, if the election was providing less than maximum spouse coverage.  If a spouse nonconcurred on the SBP election, coverage would be established on the spouse's behalf by operation of law.  If the servicemember declined to elect coverage for an eligible spouse, coverage cannot be established in the future except during an authorized open enrollment period.

The servicemember and the applicant were married on 21 November 1990.  According to the Defense Finance and Service - Cleveland Center (DAFS-CL) the servicemember elected full spouse and child coverage under SBP, but later submitted a corrected election to decline SBP prior to his 1 October 1992 retirement.  The servicemember died on 22 April 2001.  

The records maintained by the Finance center indicate the applicant concurred with the servicemember's election to decline SBP by signing the AF Form 1267 on 12 August 1992.  In a letter dated 25 April 2001, the applicant disputes that she signed the AF Form 1267, but offers no proof that the signature on the form is not hers. 

An open enrollment was authorized by PL 105-261 (1 March 1999 - 29 February 2000).  Each servicemember was notified by direct mail of the opportunity to enroll during the open enrollment period.  The January 1999 issue of the Afterburner, USAF News for Retired Personnel, was forwarded to the servicemember's address maintained by the finance center, where he resided until his death and where the applicant continues to reside.  The Afterburner contained points of contacts to obtain additional information regarding SBP.  There is no evidence that the servicemember made an election for spouse coverage during the open enrollment period.  Based on the information provided and the servicemember's records, DPPTR recommends denying the requested relief.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 28 June 2002, for review and response.  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 error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant forfeited her right to an annuity when she signed the AF Form 1267 concurring with the servicemember’s decision not to elect coverage.  Although the applicant alleges she did not sign the form, she has not provided persuasive evidence to support that it is not her signature on the form.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-01037 in Executive Session on 21 January 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 5 Mar 02, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPTR, dated 21 Jun 02.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jun 02.