RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:	BC-2008-00969 INDEX CODE:	137.03
COUNSEL:	NONE HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to reflect that he disenrolled from the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) prior to retirement.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
During	his	retirement	processing,	he	elected	not	to	have	SBP coverage; however, his records do not reflect this election.

In support of his application, applicant provides a letter from Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS).

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was married and had eligible children prior to being retired for disability on 23 March 2005. However, he failed to complete a valid SBP election prior to retirement. Consequently, DFAS-CL established automatic spouse and child coverage based on full retired pay to comply with the law. On
19 December 2005, eight months after receiving retired pay, the member submitted a letter to DFAS-CL, requesting that his SBP coverage be terminated; however, the finance center was not authorized to comply with his request. On 7 December 2007, DFAS- CL received and processed the applicant's properly completed DD Form 2656-2 which contained his wife's signature, reflecting she concurred in the termination of her SBP coverage.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIAR recommends denial and states there is no evidence of an error or injustice. There is no evidence the applicant followed required procedures when he out-processed from Lackland AFB, TX. His December 2005 attempt to terminate SBP coverage was inappropriate and DFAS-CL was correct in not honoring his request. SBP becomes effective on the date of retirement and is irrevocable as long as there is an eligible beneficiary. Public

Law 105-85 created a disenrollment period beginning on the 25th month through the 36th month of membership whereby members may disenroll from the program. It appears he took advantage of this opportunity.

AFPC/DPSIAR's complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Air Force evaluation’s recommendation to deny is unfair. DFAS assisted him in making the necessary changes to correct the information on his SBP. Denying his request will undo nearly two years of communication and paperwork to resolve this matter.

Applicant's complete response, with attachment, 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 timely filed.
3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that he should be allowed to disenroll from the Survivor Benefit Plan. Applicant's contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR). We therefore agree with the recommendation of the Air Force OPR and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice. In view of the above and absent persuasive 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 an material error or an 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- 2008-00969 in Executive Session on 19 August 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

, Panel Chair, 
Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Feb 08, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIAR, dated 5 May 08. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 May 08.
Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 5 Jun 08, w/atch.

Panel Chair