RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-01265 INDEX CODE:	137.00
COUNSEL:	NONE HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to show he terminated spouse coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His records state $90 per month is being deducted, but in fact,
$380.93 is being deducted monthly from his retired pay and he needs the funds to live.

In support of his request, the applicant provided a copy of an inquiry to his congressman, a retired pay statement, and a notarized statement from his spouse.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Records show that the applicant elected spouse-only coverage based on full retired pay prior to his 1 Aug 87 retirement. He and his spouse divorced on 5 Jun 90 and DFAS was not notified until 19 Nov 00; however, overpaid premiums were refunded to the applicant.

He remarried on 2 Nov 91 but failed to notify the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) until 2 May 07. His new spouse became the eligible beneficiary as required by statute, and the applicant was notified of the retroactive premium debt. He failed to notify DFAS that he did not want to re-establish SBP coverage for his spouse.

Public Law 99-145 allows a participant, with suspended spouse coverage, to elect not to resume coverage for a subsequently acquired spouse. However, the new spouse will be automatically covered at the previous level of SBP coverage on the first anniversary of the marriage, if the member takes no action before that date. Premiums for the coverage become effective the first day of the 13th month after the marriage and DFAS-CL will compute

the retroactive costs when evidence of the remarriage becomes a matter of record.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIAR recommends denial. DPSIAR states there is no evidence of error or injustice and that information is regularly published in the Afterburner, News for USAF Retired Personnel, reminding retirees that it is their responsibility to keep the beneficiary information up-to-date. Beneficiary information, both SBP and arrears of retired pay (AOP), are printed on the annual retiree account statements (RASs) DFAS-CL sends to retirees. In many cases, the SBP beneficiary is not the same person as the beneficiary for the AOP. The AOP beneficiary must be designated by the member; however, the SBP beneficiary is the person who meets the legal eligibility criteria.

The applicant offers no explanation or information to suggest that his intent in notifying DFAS-CL of his marriage was only to name his current spouse as his AOP beneficiary.

The complete AFPC/DPSIAR evaluation is at Exhibit B.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 20 Jun 08 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C). As of this date, this office has not received a response.

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; however, the Board Majority agrees with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopts 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, the Board Majority finds no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
1.	

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 Docket Number BC- 2008-01265 in Executive Session on 25 September 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

, Panel Chair, 
Member
, Member

By majority vote, the Board voted to deny the request. Mr. XXXXX voted to grant the applicant’s request and declined to submit a minority report.

The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 11 Mar 08. Exhibit B.	Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIAR, dated 28 May 08. Exhibit C.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Jun 08.

Panel Chair