RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03065
			INDEX CODE:		 137.01, 137.04
		)	COUNSEL:  None

			HEARING DESIRED:  No
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her deceased husband’s records be corrected to show that he elected spouse coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her deceased husband bought home a form, which she signed but she was never briefed on the SBP.  He was briefed that SBP costs would be 50% of his retirement pay, which they agonized over before declining SBP coverage.  She was told by an associate that her husband must have been misbriefed because most people would not participate in the SBP if they were required to pay 50% of their retirement pay.  A SBP counselor recently told her that the premium her husband would have had to pay would have been approximately 6.5% of his retirement pay.  If they were correctly informed during their initial briefing, they would have elected to participate in the program and she would have never signed the form declining coverage.

In support of her request, applicant provided a copy of her late husband’s DD Form 2656, Data for Payment of Retired Personnel (Corrected Copy), a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, a copy of his Certificate of Death, and an Affidavit of Support.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The former member and the applicant were married on 22 July 1973.  Documents provided by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Cleveland Center (DFAS-CL), reflect that the member declined SBP coverage prior to his 1 October 1993 retirement and the applicant concurred in the election.  The member died on 3 October 2002.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPTR recommends denial.  While the applicant’s claim that she was not briefed on the SBP or provided the correct SBP cost information, the decedent’s SBP election form maintained by DFAS-CL reflects that the applicant provided her written concurrence and that her signature was witnessed by personnel at the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) at Seymour Johnson AFB NC on 23 September 1993.  A corrected election means the original election was changed.  There is no indication that the staff at the Seymour Johnson MPF did not comply with Air Force guidance that requires SBP counselors to mail a letter, inviting the spouse to attend the member’s one-on-one briefing, or act inappropriately in witnessing the member’s election, or obtaining the applicant’s concurrence.  It is incumbent upon each person, who signs a statement or contract, to understand the implications of signing.  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.  Further, there is no record the member submitted an election under PL 105-261.  Had the member elected SBP coverage on the applicant’s behalf, the monthly premiums would have been approximately $87 per month and the applicant would be entitled to receive an SBP annuity of $735 until she attains age 62.  It would be inequitable to other widows, who also concurred in their sponsor’s elections to decline coverage, to grant this widow another opportunity to obtain SBP coverage after the death of the member.

There is no evidence of Air Force error or injustice.  

The DPPTR evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states that she was never briefed by any personnel at the MPF at Seymour Johnson AFB, NC and no dollar amounts were ever discussed with her except by her husband based on his briefing.  She has submitted an affidavit of support.  She believes that several mistakes were made by the SBP counselor.  Her husband’s pre-retirement checklist states that he was required to complete DD Form 2656 prior to receiving SBP counseling.  There is no evidence as to what corrections were made on the DD Form 2656.  She believes that many retirees are misbriefed and she believes her husband’s records should be changed.  She does not believe her husband was deliberately misinformed, but rather a case of unfortunate circumstances.  Her 

husband went to his grave believing he would have to give up 50% of his retirement pay for SBP coverage.

Her complete submission, with attachments, is at 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 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.  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 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-2003-03065 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 29 Jul 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPTR, dated 14 Nov 03.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Nov 03.
   Exhibit D   Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.