RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00032
		INDEX CODE:  137.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her deceased husband’s record be changed so that their son is eligible for Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her late husband was paralyzed one year after their son’s birth.  He was unable due to critical health, to sign the necessary forms for the benefits.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, the service member’s Certificate of Death, and other documentation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to AFPC/DPPTR the service member declined SBP coverage prior to his 1 July 1980 retirement.  They are unable to determine his marital status, or if he had eligible children at that time.  He and the applicant married on 21 February 1987, and their son was born on 4 April 1987.

On 16 November 1990 the service member died.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPTR recommended denial.  They indicated that the applicant offers no explanation for the twelve-year delay in seeking correction.  Her claim that the accident rendered the member unable to sign an election for his son is without merit.  On 23 March 1990, the member’s application to obtain an identification card for his son reflected he was unable to sign the form, but two witnesses attested to his physical inability and verified his intent.  It is reasonable to expect the same process to have been used by the member, his wife and others to effect an election for SBP coverage if the member had desired to provide that protection.  

There is no evidence of Air Force error or injustice.  However, if the Board’s decision is to grant relief, the member’s record should be corrected to show he elected child only coverage based on full-retired pay effective 5 April 1987.  Approval should be contingent upon proof that the member had no eligible dependent children on the date of retirement, as well as subsequent to his retirement, but prior to 4 April 1987 and recovery of all appropriate SBP costs.

The evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and indicates that before her husband died he began to get his affairs in order.  He realized that his son was not signed up for Survivor Benefits and wanted him to receive them.  The applicant has two witnesses that were present when the conversation took place.  She attempted to retrieve the proper paperwork; however, within days her husband died.

She further indicates that she was unaware that her son was neither signed up for DEERS coverage or Survivor Benefits.  Because she married the service member after his retirement from the Air Force, she was unaware of the rules and regulations regarding these issues.  She wrongly thought her son was automatically covered as was the case regarding Social Security.

Her late husband’s only true happiness during his last years was to be able to see his son.  He had always had great dreams and hopes for his future.  He spoke proudly of his service to his country.  However, due to the critical nature of his injuries, he was not always aware of the realities of his impending death or the burdens that his family suffered during that tragic time.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an 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 and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  The service member declined SBP coverage prior to his 1 July 1980 retirement.  It appears that the service member had no eligible beneficiary when he retired.  He and the applicant married on 21 February 1987 and their son was born 4 April 1987.  However, we find no evidence that the service member intended to provide SBP coverage for his spouse or child.  The service member’s disability is duly noted; however, it appears that the handicap did not prevent the service member’s child from being enrolled in DEERS.  It would appear that the same process used to enroll the child in DEERS could have been employed to elect SBP coverage during the allotted time period, if that had been the service member’s desire.  Unfortunately, there is insufficient evidence this was done or that it was the member’s intent to enroll the child.  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 an error or an 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-2003-00032 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 21 March 2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPTR, dated 25 April 2003.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 May 2003.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, undated.