RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00489

   	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 Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) naming her as beneficiary.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She and the service member were married for 36 years prior to their divorce and she did not ask for maintenance at the time of their divorce with the agreement he would provide coverage for her under the SBP program.

In support of her appeal, the applicant submits her personal statement, and copies of their marriage certificate and divorce decree.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant and the service member were married on 12 July 1953.

Prior to the member’s 1 September 1973 retirement in the grade of master sergeant, he declined SBP coverage for his spouse.

During the one-year open enrollment period (1 Oct 81 - 30 Sep 82) authorized by Public Law 97-35 (PL 97-35), the member elected full spouse only coverage.

The applicant and the member divorced on 9 March 1989.  In April 1989, the member submitted a request to the finance center to eliminate the applicant as the eligible SBP spouse beneficiary and his spouse premiums were suspended retroactive to the date of divorce and overpaid premiums refunded.

The member was not married when he died on 9 March 1998.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Retiree Services Branch, AFPC/DPPTR, recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the applicant’s claim that she is entitled to all benefits is not supported by the divorce decree.  The member could have elected former spouse coverage voluntarily within the first year following their divorce, but failed to do so.  Instead, he elected to suspend his SBP premiums one month after the divorce, indicative of his intent not to maintain SBP coverage on her behalf.  Furthermore, the applicant has failed to explain her five-year delay in requesting corrective action.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states that she did not know all of the rules and regulations regarding SBP upon divorce.  She asked for all benefits in the divorce settlement thinking that included SBP.  Her discussion with the member at the time included SBP, which he would provide for her.  Regarding her timeliness in seeking corrective action, she did not wait five years to seek relief.  To the contrary, she has made several trips to Whiteman AFB and all they have told her is that she was not eligible for benefits.  She has also seen a Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) representative several times and spent much time on the phone and sending letters in an attempt to obtain assistance.

Applicant’s complete response is 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; 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 BC-2003-00489 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 24 Jan 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Member's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPTR, dated 11 Mar 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Mar 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Mar 03.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair