RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00319
		INDEX CODE: 137.00

	APPLICANT	COUNSEL:  None

	SSN	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When her former late-husband applied for retirement in October 1991, she signed the Air Force Form 1266 for Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) Election for 55 percent; this was done in the presence of a representative in the personnel office at March AFB.

The servicemember passed away on December 25, 2002.  She called the Defense Finance and Accounting Service-Cleveland (DFAS-CL) Office to inform them of the servicemember’s death because she was receiving spousal support by a court order.  The DFAS-CL office informed her that she would not be receiving the SBP at the 55 percent.

On January 21, 2003, she found an AF Form 1266 signed by her former late-husband for reduced SBP coverage with her signature forged.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Public Law (PL) 99-145 required the spouses of retiring servicemembers on or after March 1, 1986, to concur with SBP elections the servicemember elected, if the election was for less than full spouse coverage.  However, written concurrence is not required if the servicemember elected spouse coverage based on full retired pay.  The spouse must be notified of the options and effects of SBP and of the servicemember’s election for maximum 
coverage.  Servicemembers whose marital status changes after retirement from spouse to former spouse cannot increase the base amount following the divorce unless Congress authorizes an open enrollment period.  Upon divorce the spouse becomes ineligible to receive SBP, however, the law provides two mechanisms for changing spouse to former spouse coverage.  Both must be exercised within one year after the divorce:  the servicemember may file an election change, or the former spouse may request the retiree be deemed to have made a change on his or her behalf providing the former spouse provides legal documentation that the servicemember agreed, or the court ordered the servicemember, to establish former spouse coverage.

The applicant and the servicemember were married on 20 July 1964.  Prior to the servicemember’s 1 October 1991 retirement, he elected spouse and child SBP coverage based on the low-cost threshold in effect at that time.  The servicemember and the applicant were divorced on 27 September 1994.  The court ordered the servicemember to continue the SBP coverage for the applicant.  The servicemember submitted an election on 27 January 1995 in the applicant’s behalf.  The servicemember remarried on 18 October 1999.  The SBP premiums were being deducted from his retired pay until his death on 25 December 2002.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPTR states the applicant submitted a notarized letter alleging the signature on the copy of an AF Form 1267, Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) Notification and Concurrence, is not her signature and that she did sign an SBP election form for annuity for 55 percent of the servicemember’s retired pay.  Due to the Cleveland finance center’s inability to retrieve pre-November 1993 Air Force retired pay documents, DPPTR could not provide a copy of the AF Form 1267 used to establish the servicemember’s retired pay account.  However, the Denver microfiche records reflect the servicemember elected reduced spouse and child coverage based on the low-threshold cost with spousal concurrence.  If the servicemember had elected full spouse coverage, the applicant’s signature would not have been required on the AF Form 1267.  The copy of the AF Form 1267 the applicant provided reflects the SBP counselor properly complied with Air Force procedures.  Furthermore, the counselor annotated Section II, indicating the SBP notification package was sent on 5 August 1991 to the applicant by certified mail and she signed the return mail receipt on 8 August 1991. 

The applicant alleges the signature on the AF Form 1267 is a forgery.  The applicant has not provided any examples of signature during the timeframe in question, or testimony from a competent handwriting expert, in support of her allegation.

The monthly cost of reduced SBP at the time the servicemember retired was $9.07 per month (2.5 percent of $363).  At the time of the applicant and servicemember’s divorce the cost had risen by cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) to $10.69 per month.  Since the servicemember’s and the applicant’s divorce the base amount has risen to $498 and monthly premiums as of 1 December 2002 are $16.12 per month.  The applicant is not currently receiving SBP, but she is entitled to approximately $273 per month (55 percent of $498).  Had the servicemember elected full SBP coverage the applicant would have been eligible to receive $1,600 per month (55 percent of $2900) until age 62.

AFPC/DPPTR finds no evidence of error or injustice and therefore, recommends the requested relief be denied.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states during the timeframe in question, she and the servicemember were married and living together, she worked five days a week for DOD at Norton AFB.  The servicemember was home on terminal leave and must have received the mail and signed on her behalf.  She did not receive or sign any documentation for a reduced annuity.  The applicant has submitted samples of her signature for that time period.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 contends that she signed an SBP election form which would provide her with full spouse coverage.  Additionally, the applicant alleges that the signature on the Air Force (AF) Form 1267, which she found after her former spouse’s death, is a forgery.  We note however that had the servicemember elected spouse coverage based on full retired pay, the applicant’s signature would not have been required on the AF Form 1267.  Rather, all that was required was notification of the election for maximum coverage.  We note the applicant submitted samples presumably of her signature during the time period in question; however, although we are not handwriting experts, these samples, in and by themselves, are not sufficiently persuasive to determine the signature on the AF Form 1267 is a forgery.  Further, the applicant has not provided any testimony from a competent handwriting specialist that the signature on the AF Form 1267 is a forgery of her signature.  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 BC-2003-00319 in Executive Session on 26 June 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

              Panel Chair
              Member
              Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 27 Jan 03, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPTR, dated 19 Mar 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Mar 03.
	Exhibit E.	Applicant’s Response, dated 20 Apr 03, w/atchs.

					
					Panel Chair