RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02917
			INDEX CODE:		 137.01, 137.04
	 	  	COUNSEL:  None

			HEARING DESIRED:  No
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show that he elected to terminate coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He and his wife were told that cancellation had to be done by his wife.  She underwent three surgeries, loss of hair and personal catastrophes during the cancellation period.  She was unable to initiate cancellation until she partially recovered in July 2003.

In support of his request, applicant provided a notarized copy of DD Form 2656, Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) Termination Request, and a copy of a Report on Individual Person.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The former member was married and elected spouse and child SBP coverage based on full-retired pay prior to his 1 February 2000 retirement.  He was eligible to disenroll between 1 February 2002 and 31 January 2003.  DFAS-CL’s records show that the member did not submit a disenrollment request until 24 July 2003, six months after the end of the one-year period.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPTR recommends denial.  While the applicant’s wife’s illness is unfortunate, PL 105-85 contained no provision for waiving or extending the one-year period authorized to terminate participation.  Information and points of contact are regularly published in the Afterburner, News for USAF Retired Personnel, reminding retirees of the one-year opportunity to terminate SBP coverage between the second and third anniversary following the start of retired pay.  Issues of the Afterburner are mailed to the correspondence address each retiree provides to the finance center.

Further, the election form which the member signed five months prior to his retirement, contains a specific statement that retiring members have been counseled that SBP can be terminated with the spouse’s written concurrence, within one year after the second anniversary of commencement of retired pay.  Providing this applicant additional time to terminate his SBP coverage regardless of his wife’s medical condition would be inequitable to other retirees in similar situations and is not justified by the facts.

The DPPTR evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 17 Oct 2003, for review and response.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that the relief requested 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.  We therefore agree with the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice.  However, should the applicant provide the Board sufficient documentation from a medical doctor showing that his wife was incapacitated during the time in question, the Board would reconsider his case.  In view of the above and absent of persuasive 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 an material error or an 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-2003-02917 in Executive Session on 27 January 2004 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Aug 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPTR, dated 15 Oct 03.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Oct 03.