RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03976
		INDEX CODE:  137.00

		COUNSEL:  	

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The supplemental portion of his Survivor Benefit Plan (SSBP) coverage be terminated and that the premiums be refunded.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The instructions he received with his election package were confusing to the point that he elected SSBP, believing his payments for SSBP would not begin until he reached age 62, the age that SSBP would actually benefit his former spouse.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

In October 1996, prior to the applicant’s 60th birthday, ARPC’s Retirement Branch sent him a SBP/SSBP Information Package and a DD Form 2656, coverage election form.  The applicant elected SSBP coverage.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPS recommends denial.  DPS states that there is no evidence that the member was miscounseled or misinformed regarding his election of RCSBP.  Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant disagrees with the information provided in the ARPC/DPS advisory and feels that he is not being treated fairly.  His original intent was only to provide better RCSBP coverage for his ex-spouse.  His contention is that he was not properly counseled on RCSBP and the instructions for RCSBP were unclear and completely different from the instructions attached to the DPS advisory.  Consequently he has ended up paying for two years for a supplemental that offered him nothing more than what his ex-spouse was to receive anyway.  He contends that because his ex-spouse would have received 55% of his pay until she turned 62 anyway, why would he pay for a supplemental for those two years prior to his ex-spouse actually reaching age 62.  He concludes that he wants to retain the regular RCSBP but would like to cancel the RCSBP supplemental and recoup the monies he has paid for the supplemental to date.  (Exhibit E)

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ ARPC/DPS recommends denial.  DPS reaccomplished their original evaluation and now correctly state the applicant’s request to withdraw from SSBP and not RCSBP.  In accordance with Title 10 United States Code (U.S.C.), there is no provision where the member can change an election after the 30-day period following his election.  Section 1448a of Title 10 states that the member may elect, between his 2nd and 3rd anniversary of drawing retired pay, to discontinue coverage.  DPS states that there is no evidence that the member was miscounseled or misinformed regarding his election of RCSBP.  

DPS’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the additional Air Force Evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 30 May 2003, for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.  

_________________________________________________________________

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 his uncorroborated assertions of miscounseling and confusing instructions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  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 decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive 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 BC-2002-03976 in Executive Session on 26 June 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Dec 02, w/atch. 
    Exhibit B.  Letter, ARPC/DPS, dated 6 Jan 03.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jan 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Rebuttal, dated 5 Feb 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 7 Apr 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, ARPC/DPS, dated 19 May 03.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 03.