RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01999

   	COUNSEL:  NONE

   	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her former husband’s records be corrected to show that he elected former spouse coverage under the Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP) naming her as beneficiary.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Since she was married to the servicemember for 27 years prior to their divorce, she should be entitled to an annuity.

In support of her appeal, the applicant submits her personal statement and a copy of the servicemember’s death certificate.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Effective 1 March 1986, Public Law (PL) 99-145 permitted retiring members to select SBP coverage for a former spouse with the same cost as coverage options as a spouse.

On 5 August 1987, the service member reached age 60 and began receiving Reserve retired pay, in the grade of chief master sergeant.  He was not married at the time, and declined RCSBP coverage.

During the one-year open enrollment periods authorized by PLs 101-189 and 105-261, retirees were permitted to elect former spouse coverage during the periods 1 April 1992 through 31 March 1993 and 1 March 1999 through 29 February 2000, respectively.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Retiree Services Branch, AFPC/DPPTR, recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that while the applicant may have been married to the servicemember for 27 years, duration is not legal grounds for authorizing SBP eligibility.  In this regard, AFPC/DPPTR notes that SBP is similar to commercial life insurance in that an individual must elect to participate and pay the associated premiums in order to have coverage.  The member could have elected former spouse SBP coverage on the applicant’s behalf when he applied for commencement of his retired pay, but failed to do so.  Records indicate that both the 1992 to 1993 and 1999 to 2000 open enrollment packets were mailed to the correspondence address the member had provided to the Defense Accounting and Finance Service (DFAS), but there is no evidence he returned an election on the applicant’s behalf during either period.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 9 August 2002 for review and response within 30 days.  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; 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 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.  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 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 02-01999 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 16 Jun 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Member's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPTR, dated 30 Jul 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Aug 02.

                                   Panel Chair