RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02546
		INDEX NUMBER:  137.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Corrective action be taken that would permit him to provide Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage for his wife.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was unaware of the time constraint of one year from the date of his marriage to select an SBP for his wife.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal statement, a copy of the Certified Abstract of Marriage, a copy of his Pay Identification, a copy of the certification of the SBP Briefing, a copy of the note to DFAS requesting changes to his retirement account, a copy of the note requesting the deduction for SBP (spouse benefits) be removed from his Retiree Account Statement, copies of December and January Retiree Account Statements, and an Afterburner news article.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was unmarried, had eligible children, and completed a valid election for child-only coverage based on full retired pay prior to his 1 October 1995 retirement.  However, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service – Cleveland Center (DFAS-CL) did not receive a copy of the member’s election form and established automatic spouse coverage based on full retired pay.  On 17 November 1995, DFAS-CL received a request from the applicant to delete the spouse SBP cost since he was not married at retirement.  The applicant’s record was changed to show he declined SBP coverage and had no eligible spouse.  The finance center refunded premiums erroneously deducted for spouse coverage to the applicant.  The applicant and his spouse married on 31 May 1997; however, he failed to request SBP coverage for her within the first year of their marriage.  Had child-only coverage been properly established, the monthly premium would have been approximately $3 until the youngest child lost eligibility February 2002, child’s 21st birthday.

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

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPTR states that a copy of the SBP RIP located in the applicant’s records shows he signed the certification sheet on     7 August 1995, indicating he was properly briefed on the options and effects of the Plan.  Item H1 of the SBP RIP explained that members, who have no spouse or child at retirement, may elect SBP for these dependents within one year of acquisition.  Although the applicant indicated that he might have not committed to memory the information received at retirement, he notified the finance center twice shortly after his retirement of the error in his marital status at retirement.  Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that he was aware he should have contacted the finance center to obtain information necessary to add his wife to the Plan when he married.  Additionally, the Afterburner, News For USAF Retired Personnel, published January 2000, reminded retirees of the opportunity to enroll their newly acquired spouse in the Plan within the first year of marriage.  Public Law 105-261, 17 October 1998, authorized a one-year open enrollment period (1 March 1999 – 29 February 2000) for retirees to elect coverage.  The applicant could have elected coverage for his wife during this period, but failed to do so.  It would be contrary to the letter and intent of the law, as well as inequitable, to grant this applicant an additional opportunity not afforded to other members similarly situated.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.  A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 13 September 2002, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment 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 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 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 recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  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 this application 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 25 Jul 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, DPPTR, dated 11 Sep 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Sep 02.