RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03374
		INDEX CODE:  137.04

  	COUNSEL:  NONE

  XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He would like to know what he needs to do to provide SBP coverage for his spouse.  They were married in 1968.

In support of his request, applicant submits a copy of his wife’s DD Form 2AF, Identification and Privilege Card (front side), and a copy of his marriage certificate.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Based on information provided by the Air Force, the applicant retired on 1 Jan 67 and was married on 1 Jun 68.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPTR reviewed this application and recommended denial.  A member who was married during the Plan’s initial enrollment period authorized by Public Law (PL) 92-425, which established the SBP, and failed to provide SBP coverage for that eligible spouse beneficiary, may not later elect coverage for that person, or another person of the same category, unless Congress authorizes an open enrollment.  Public Laws 97-35, 101-189, and 105-261 established open enrollment periods (1 Oct 81 - 30 Sep 82, 1 Apr 92 - 31 Mar 93, and 1 Mar 99 - 29 Feb 00, respectively) so that retirees could elect or increase SBP coverage.  The enrollment packets, as well as the Afterburner, News for USAF Retired Personnel, published during these periods, were sent to the correspondence address members had provided to the finance center and contained points of contacts to use to gain additional information.

The applicant has provided no compelling evidence that justifies extending a fifth opportunity for him to provide SBP coverage for his wife.  SBP is similar to commercial life insurance in that an individual must elect to participate and pay the associated premiums in order to provide coverage.  It would be inequitable to other retirees similarly situated, to grant the applicant’s request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

A copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 7 November 2003 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response (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.  The applicant has had four opportunities to establish survivor coverage for his spouse -- during the Plan’s initial enrollment period in 1972, and during three subsequent open enrollment periods.  However, there is no evidence he elected coverage in her behalf during any of these periods.  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-2003-03374 in Executive Session on 27 January 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Oct 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPTR, dated 3 Nov 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Nov 03.