RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00339
		INDEX CODE:  137.04

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Corrective action be taken to enable him to change his Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage from child only to spouse and child.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When he originally elected SBP coverage he understood that if he should ever marry, he would be able to change his election to cover his wife.  His children are now grown, he is married, his premiums are current and he would like for his wife to have the benefit.  He did not know that he would not be able to change his election in the event of his marriage.

In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a copy of his marriage certificate.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Records indicate that, prior to his 1 April 1989 retirement, the applicant (who was married at the time of his election) elected child only coverage based on full, retired pay.  As the law requires, his wife concurred in his election.  Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS), reports he was married twice prior to becoming married to his third wife on 22 December 2001.  If married, he was eligible to add a spouse to his child only coverage during two SBP open enrollment periods, 1 April 1992 through 31 March 1993 and 1 March 1999 through 29 February 2000.  There is no evidence he made any election changes during the open enrollment periods.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPTR recommends denial.  DPPTR does not challenge the applicant’s admitted misunderstanding of the beneficiary exclusion feature of SBP; however, had he elected spouse only SBP coverage at the time of his retirement, coverage and costs would have been suspended upon the date of his divorce.  Coverage would have been reinstated on the first anniversary of his marriage to each subsequent spouse.  He offers no explanation of his failure to provide SBP protection during his intervening marriage.  Additionally, issues of The Afterburner, News for Retired Air Force Personnel, were routinely mailed to the applicant’s correspondence address on file at the finance center.  Copies of The Afterburner, during the open enrollment periods, contained points of contact for additional SBP information.  DPPTR states that SBP coverage is similar to commercial life insurance in that an individual must elect to participate and pay the associated premiums in order to have coverage.  It would be inequitable to those members, who chose to elect spouse coverage when eligible and subsequently received reduced retired pay, to provide an additional opportunity for the applicant to change his SBP election.

DPPTR’s complete 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 2 April 2004 for review and comment 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 including his contention that he misunderstood SBP policies; 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.  He had multiple opportunities to make the changes he is now requesting and failed to do so.  Ample information appears to be available to military retirees in the public domain regarding the procedures and requirements surrounding SBP changes and/or elections.  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-2004-00339 in Executive Session on 20 July 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Jan 04, w/atch. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPTR, dated 31 Mar 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Apr 04.

                                   Panel Chair