RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:	BC-2008-00828 INDEX CODE:	137.04
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His late father’s records be corrected to allow his sister (decedent’s daughter) to receive annuity payments under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His father submitted an SBP election change on 10 December 1981 to include his sister, who was dependent due to medical reasons.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a DD Form 430, Survivor Benefit Plan Election Change Under PL 97-35; an Air Force medical statement certifying the decedent’s daughter is incapable of self-support; an SBP dependent eligibility letter from the Air Force; DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge; SBP Information Form; father’s and mother’s death certificates, daughter’s birth certificate; civilian doctor’s statement; daughter’s power of attorney to her brother; daughter’s current address; and daughter’s notarized statements of never being married or employed.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant’s father was honorably released from active duty effective 31 March 1971 and retired effective 1 April 1971 in the grade of colonel (O-6). He served a total of 26 years, 3 months, and 26 days of active duty.

The remaining relevant facts are contained in the Air Force advisory opinion at Exhibit B.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIAR recommends the applicant’s request be denied. DPSIAR states that upon his retirement, the decedent elected spouse and child SBP coverage based on a reduced level of retired pay during the Plan’s initial enrollment period. The Air Force Accounting and Finance Center (AFAFC) records were coded to show the eligible child, date of birth 6 April 1943, was incapable of self-support. The member increased his SBP base amount from reduced to full coverage during the open enrollment authorized by Public Law (PL) 97-35 (1 October 1981 – 30 September 1982). In January 1993, the member submitted documentation to the finance center, showing his disabled child was no longer financially dependent; therefore, the child portion of his spouse and child SBP coverage was suspended and the child premiums were stopped. The member’s wife remained eligible as the primary beneficiary until her 18 March 2005 death. The member died on 26 March 2006.

DPSIAR states there is no dispute as to the applicant’s claim that his father elected coverage on his disabled child’s behalf. However, that coverage was suspended based on information the member provided to AFAFC, indicating the child was financially independent. The laws controlling SBP extend life-time eligibility for a child, who is incapable of self-support. However, the child loses eligibility as an SBP beneficiary if documentation is provided to the finance center, proving the child is no longer financially dependent or the child marries. Notwithstanding the failure of the finance center to retain documentation of the member’s request, the record clearly and specifically reflects the member’s notification was received and processed. During the twelve years the coverage was terminated, there is no evidence  the member questioned the change or attempted to reinstate the child’s coverage. These facts are indicative of the member’s intent to terminate his disabled child’s eligibility because of her financial independence.

The DPSIAR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant responded that his parents were extremely proud people and did not believe in accepting Government assistance. He doesn’t believe his father really understood the ramifications of his decision when he notified the AFAFC that his sister was financially independent. He asks that humanitarian consideration be given to granting his sister’s SBP benefits as his sister is definitely handicapped. His parents are deceased and cannot be questioned as to the rationale for removing his sister from coverage and the Air Force’s failure to retain documents.

The applicant’s rebuttal, with attachments, is at 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 this case; however, we agree with the opinion and the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its 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.

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 29 July 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

, Panel Chair, , 
Member, 
Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-00828:

Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 28 Feb 08, w/atchs. Exhibit B.	Letter, AFPC/DPSIAR, dated 28 May 08. Exhibit C.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Jun 08.
Exhibit D.	Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 18 Jul 08, w/atchs.

Panel Chair