RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00284
		INDEX CODE:  137.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show that he changed the base amount of his spouse and child coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) from full to a reduced level of retired pay.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He made his election for SBP coverage for his spouse and children.  He initialed in the wrong block.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits copies of the old DD Form 2656, Data for Payment of Retired Personnel, and the new one.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was married and on 22 September 2004, made an SBP election at Randolph AFB for spouse and child coverage based on full-retired pay, prior to his 1 January 2005 retirement.  Since he elected maximum spouse coverage, his wife’s concurrence was not required.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRT states they can neither confirm nor deny the applicant’s claim that he thought he was choosing reduced coverage.  Item 27a of the DD Form 2656, the block applicant initialed, clearly reads “I elect coverage based on full gross pay without supplemental SBP.  Additionally, since the applicant’s wife did not sign Section XI of the DD Form 2656, concurring to a lesser annuity amount, it is reasonable to conclude that reduced coverage was not the intended or desired selection.  The applicant signed the SBP Report of Individual Person (RIP), acknowledging he understood the options and effects of his actions pertaining to his SBP election and although the SBP counselor’s role is to brief and assist the applicant in making an SBP election, it is ultimately the applicant’s responsibility to elect the coverage that best suits their family.  Approval of this request would provide the applicant an opportunity not afforded other retirees.  The applicant may disenroll with his wife’s written concurrence, during the one-year period beginning 1 January 2007 as authorized by PL 105-85.  There is no evidence of an error or injustice; therefore they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states he would like to comment on some points that are inaccurately stated.  First, he would like to refute the following invalid assumption:  Since his wife’s concurrence was not required, she was not present at the 22 Sep 04 SPB agreement signing.  In fact, his wife is very busy with her own business and significant coordination effort was required to have her attend this meeting.  The Randolph AFB SBP POC can attest to the fact that his wife was indeed present at this meeting and did, in fact, sign the SBP paperwork.  Second, on his honor as a military officer, he declares that he did indeed believe that the coverage he was signing for on 22 Sep 04 with his wife present was the desired level of reduced coverage.  The difference on the DD Form 2656 is simply initialing one block versus another.  If he is willing to submit this request with his wife’s concurrence, then it is not reasonable to conclude that reduced coverage was not his intended selection.  He certainly hopes that Air Force error doesn’t have to be a finding in order to approve changing his SBP coverage.  In fact, this is a simple miscommunication that both his wife and he want to correct.  He asks that they be granted the relief they desire, spouse and child SBP coverage of $1320.  He also asks that his wife’s signature on this document be her written concurrence with the requested action.

Applicant's complete response, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 and adopt their rationale as the basis for the 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 this application in Executive Session on 7 July 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				 , Panel Chair
				 , Member
				 , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 19 Jan 05, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRT, dated 2 Feb 05.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Feb 05.
	Exhibit E.	Applicant’s Response, dated 18 Feb 05, w/atch.

 
					Panel Chair