RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00645
		INDEX CODE:  137.04

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Corrective action be taken to permit him to provide Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage for his wife.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was not aware that he had to report his marriage to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) within one year of his marriage. 

In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided copies of his Retiree Account Statement for August 2003, certificate of marriage, a response from DFAS regarding his earlier attempt to cover his wife, and his DD Form 2656, Data for Payment of Retired Personnel.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was not married, had no eligible children, and declined SBP coverage prior to being placed on the Permanent Disability Retired List, effective 8 June 2000.  On 23 December 2001, he married but failed to submit a valid spouse election within the first year of his marriage.  On 14 January 2004, he faxed a request to DFAS – Cleveland requesting his wife be covered by SBP.  The request was denied.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPTR recommends denial.  DPPTR stated that although the member claims he was unaware of the required one-year time limit, 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 

reminded retirees of their SBP options when marrying after retirement.  In fact, the January 2002 issue of The Afterburner, published within the applicant’s one-year time limit, provided specific guidance of how to obtain SBP coverage for his wife.  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.  Approval of this application would provide the applicant an additional opportunity to elect SBP coverage not afforded other retirees similarly situated and is not justified.

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 9 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 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 including his claim that he was unaware of the one-year time limit he had to inform the proper authorities of his marriage and request coverage for his new spouse; 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.  Ample information appears to be available to military retirees in the public domain regarding the procedures and requirements surrounding SBP elections.  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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-00645 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 23 Feb 04, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPTR, dated 7 Apr 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Apr 04.