RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00670
		INDEX CODE:  137.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show that his wife is entitled to a Survivor Benefit (SBP) annuity.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His first wife was covered under RSFPP (now deceased).  He never put his new wife in because he was never informed of an open season to add his new spouse.

The applicant did not provide any documents in support of the appeal.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant and his former wife were married on 6 January 1951, and he elected coverage for her under the Retired Servicemen’s Family Protection Plan (RSFPP) prior to his 1 February 1967 retirement.  He did not elect coverage for his former wife during the 72-74, 81-82 or 92-93 open enrollments and she died         29 November 1997.  Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) records reflect the applicant and his current wife married on 10 September 1999.  The RSFPP has no provision to allow coverage to be extended to spouses acquired after retirement.  The applicant advised the Defense Finance and Accounting Service - Cleveland Center (DFAS-CL) of his new address November 1999.  There is no evidence he submitted an election during the open enrollment authorized by PL 105-261.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPTR states that the Afterburner is published only three times a year - January, May and September.  The January, May and September 1999 issues of the Afterburner, containing information, the prescribed form, and follow-up information about the 1999-2000 SBP open enrollment, were sent to the applicant at 31 Rock Royal Road, Trenton , NJ 08620-1611, the address he had reported to the finance center as his correspondence address since as early as December 1978 and which he did not change until November 1999.  The 1999-2000 open enrollment required members to pay a lump-sum buy-in and complete repayment within 24 months after making the election.  The amount of the buy-in was based upon the earliest date the member was eligible to elect coverage, but did not.  In this case, the applicant’s lump-sum buy-in would have been approximately $33,000 and the current monthly cost would be about $82, which would provide the P--- approximately $444 (35 percent of the member’s gross retired pay).  The petitioner had several opportunities to elect spouse coverage, but he did not.  If he had elected SBP for G--- in 1972, 1981, or 1992 his coverage would have been suspended following her death and reinstated on the first anniversary of his marriage to P---.  Furthermore, he would not have had to pay the lump-sum buy-in, nor live for two years following the effective date of the election in order for P--- to be eligible to receive SBP payments.  Rather, she would have automatically become eligible for the SBP on the first anniversary of their marriage.  Only 250 Air Force retirees elected coverage during the open enrollment authorized by PL 105-261.  It would be inequitable to those members, who chose to participate when first eligible or suffered repaying the lump-sum buy-in required for members who elected coverage under PL 105-261, to provide this applicant another opportunity to enroll.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states that he did receive an Afterburner or enrollment packet with the 99-00 SBP info in it, or he certainly would have looked into enrolling in the SBP Plan for XXXXX at that time.  As anyone knows, moving and getting married in the same year was quite an ordeal and it certainly was not on his mind immediately.  Also, why would he have switched his first wife, XXXXX, into the SBP Plan when she was already covered under the RSFPP Plan.  He had no way of knowing she was going to pass and he was going to remarry.  

He feels a buy-in is not feasible for most people, including himself, when death is an act of nature and not something he had control of.  He feels that he should be entitled to leave his present wife, XXXXX with some kind of benefit from the Government should he pass before her and since his first wife, XXXXX never received anything in a survival benefit.  He would hope this could be done as a correction of his military record.

Applicant's complete response 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 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 and adopt their rationale as the basis for the 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 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 20 Feb 03.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPTR, dated 27 Mar 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Apr 03.
	Exhibit E.	Applicant’s Response, dated 18 Apr 03.

					
					Panel Chair