RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01282
		INDEX CODE:  137.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Corrective action be taken that would permit him to provide Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage for his wife.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His current wife was not put on SBP.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of the Request to Modify Decree of Dissolution and a copy of his Certificate of Marriage.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was unmarried and elected child only SBP coverage based on full retired pay prior to his 1 October 1992 retirement date.  Records reflect the applicant and XXXXX married on 13 April 1993, but he failed to elect SBP coverage for her within the first year following their marriage.  His monthly premium for child coverage is less than $4; costs for spouse and child coverage would be approximately $75 per month.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPTR states that there is no evidence the applicant submitted a valid election to add his spouse to his existing child only coverage and he offers no explanation why he waited more than nine years to request corrective action.  The Afterburner, News for USAF Retired Personnel, published in January 2000, reminded retirees of the requirement to enroll their newly acquired spouse in the Plan within the first year of marriage.  Furthermore, Public Law 105-261, 17 October 1998, authorized a one-year open enrollment period (1 March 1999 - 29 February 2000) for retirees to elect coverage.  The applicant could have elected coverage for his wife during this period, but failed to do so.  Had he made an election within the first year after his marriage, he would have paid approximately $8,300 in SBP premiums to date.  However, an election under PL 105-261 would have required the petitioner pay a lump-sum buy-in amount of over $10,600.  Approval of this request would provide the applicant an additional opportunity to elect SBP coverage not afforded other retirees similarly situated and is not justified.  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:

On 17 June 2003, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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, BC-2003-01282, in Executive Session on 30 September 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 31 Mar 03, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPTR, dated 11 Jun 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jun 03.