RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00919
		INDEX CODE:  137.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her late husband's records be corrected to show that he elected coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She did not have a full understanding of her SBP options and that she was not invited to the briefing.

In support of her request, applicant submits a personal statement and a copy of her spouse’s Death Certificate.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The decedent prior to his 1 Dec 93 retirement, declined SBP coverage.  The applicant concurred with his selection on 7 Oct 93.  He died on 20 Aug 00.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPTR reviewed this application and recommended denial.  Public Law (PL) 99-145 established the requirement to obtain a spouse’s written concurrence in any election that provides less than maximum spouse coverage.  Concurrence in SBP elections apply to all married members retiring on or after 1 Mar 86.  The legislation that established the SBP required, and continues to require, information be provided to members and spouses concerning the options and effects of the SBP prior to the member’s retirement.  The Air Force has established regulations, instructions, and guidelines to ensure the letter and intent of the Federal statutes controlling the SBP are properly observed and executed.

The decedent’s SBP election form reflects that the applicant provided her written concurrence and that her signature was witnessed by personnel at the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) at Altus AFB OK on 7 Oct 93.  There is no indication that the staff at the Altus AFB MPF did not comply with Air Force guidance that requires SBP counselors to mail a letter, inviting the spouse to the member’s one-on-one briefing, or act inappropriately in witnessing the member’s election or the applicant’s concurrence.  Since the enactment, SBP counselors send a second letter to the spouse if the spouse fails to attend the individual briefing, explaining that the member made an election.  SBP counselors are not permitted to give the member the election form to hand-carry to the spouse in any situation.  Rather, the spouse must appear at the MPF to sign the form if there is not sufficient time to mail the form, have it properly notarized, and returned to the MPF before the effective date of the member’s retirement.  If the applicant had refused to sign the form because she did not fully understand the impact of her decision, she would have remained eligible for SBP coverage, the same protection she enjoyed without cost while the member served on active duty.  There is no evidence of error or injustice.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 16 May 2003 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (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 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 office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00919 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 6 Mar 03, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPTR, dated 6 May 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 May 03.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair