RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00138
		INDEX NUMBER:  137.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Applicant is the former spouse of the deceased member, who is requesting corrective action to show the member provided coverage on her behalf under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was not told, signed, or had any paperwork notarized stating that she would not receive survivor benefits.  She claims the member stated that she would receive survivor benefits.

In support of her appeal, the applicant submits a copy of the Divorce Decree and a copy of the member’s Death Certificate.

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The former member and the applicant were married on 30 November 1957.  At the time of his retirement, 1 November 1980, the member declined SBP coverage.  The parties divorced on 12 October 1983.  The member died on 29 July 2003.

__________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPTR recommends denial, stating there is no evidence of Air Force error or injustice in this case.  The law at the time of the member’s retirement did not require the spouse to concur in the election.  While the member may have told the applicant that she would receive the SBP, he did not elect SBP coverage on her behalf.  SBP is similar to commercial life insurance in that an individual must elect to participate and pay the associated premiums in order to have coverage.  The member could have elected former spouse SBP coverage on the applicant’s behalf during both the 92-93 and 99-00 open enrollment periods, but he did not.

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 20 Feb 04 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 timely filed.

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.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

__________________________________________________________________

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‑2004-00138 in Executive Session on 14 April 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Jan 04, w/atchs
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPTR, dated 13 Feb 04
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Feb 04

                                   
                                   Panel Chair